# Forestry Commission sell off



## letrec_fan (23 January 2011)

of woodland?

Thoughts/worries?


----------



## deicinmerlyn (23 January 2011)

Just watched it on the news. Shameful! It seems nothing is safe from privatisation.  Selling to the private sector for money by the government.

The NHS is going the same way, except it's through the back door and most of the public are totally unaware of it.


----------



## Sussexbythesea (23 January 2011)

Not exactly a surprise with this government - they would sell their grandma to make a few quid. 

I think it will be devastating for some areas especially as it seems only pedestrian access will have any protection. Those of you relying on Forestry riding had better start lobbying now - Big Society more like BS!.

Personally at the moment I am more worried about losing my job,  rising inflation and not being able to keep my horse or house.


----------



## Spudlet (23 January 2011)

There's a petition here:
http://38degrees.org.uk/

And a Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Save-Britains-Forests/157828020924281

There was also another online petition that I signed today, which I now can't find, not sure if they have moved the site to 38Degrees?

No, wait, the one I signed was this one: http://saveenglandsforests.org/

Some coordination is needed here, I feel...


----------



## perfect11s (24 January 2011)

sussexbythesea said:



			Not exactly a surprise with this government - they would sell their grandma to make a few quid. 

I think it will be devastating for some areas especially as it seems only pedestrian access will have any protection. Those of you relying on Forestry riding had better start lobbying now - Big Society more like BS!.

Personally at the moment I am more worried about losing my job,  rising inflation and not being able to keep my horse or house.
		
Click to expand...

 Yes that is most peoples worry, my guess is this is to help  ballance the books  and pay off the debt left by gordo  however far more could be saved by cutting the foreign aid!!! yes I know it would upset african dictators and their  swiss bankers,   but charity begins at home... and we pay the EU gravy train milions every day to make potty rules and inforce the charter on criminal rights... yes its not funny nor is shafting our armed forces or selling national assets like the FC, I feel good  about not voting for call me dave and his blue labour   ....


----------



## Amymay (24 January 2011)

I actually think that the sale by the Forestry Comission is probably illegal - and I'd love to see it challenged in the courts.


----------



## Amymay (24 January 2011)

deicinmerlyn said:



			JThe NHS is going the same way,
		
Click to expand...

That I can understand - and ultimately would probably welcome.


----------



## perfect11s (24 January 2011)

amymay said:



			I actually think that the sale by the Forestry Comission is probably illegal - and I'd love to see it challenged in the courts.
		
Click to expand...

 Sadly I think the twunts  are busy changing  the laws on this.... and before they have made any firm proprosals
as to what they are intenting to do....


----------



## Replay (24 January 2011)

perfect11s said:



			Yes that is most peoples worry, my guess is this is to help  ballance the books  and pay off the debt left by gordo  however far more could be saved by cutting the foreign aid!!! yes I know it would upset african dictators and their  swiss bankers,   but charity begins at home... and we pay the EU gravy train milions every day to make potty rules and inforce the charter on criminal rights... yes its not funny nor is shafting our armed forces or selling national assets like the FC, I feel good  about not voting for call me dave and his blue labour   ....
		
Click to expand...

They want to raise £100 million from selling our ancient woodlands, meanwhile the Government are spending £1,000 million on just the planning stage for HS2, a new ultra high speed railway line from London to Birmingham which will save 20 minutes on the existing journey.  It would be a joke if it didnt involve such unnecessary destruction of our countryside.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 January 2011)

Replay said:



			They want to raise £100 million from selling our ancient woodlands,.....
		
Click to expand...

Not so,  I'm afraid.  generally those woodlands being offered for sale,  are no older than post 1946.

Mature woodlands,  those which could be considered old,  are generally,  still in private ownership,  even though they may be managed under the guidance of The Commission.  The "Guidance" will have had a fairly hefty input of public funding,  and a funding which would be clawed back,  in the event that the vendor,  or prospective buyer failed to comply with conditions which were originally agreed.

Forestry land which has been deemed "Dedicated woodland",  is of no earthly use to the purchaser,  "as woodland".  It's a huge tax avoidance fiddle.  It's been going on for years.  By all accounts Terry Wogan owns half of Cumbria!!

When Commission land is sold of,  on the very rarest of occasions for development,  then factored into any sale,  is a whopping great repayment,  into the government coffers,  and quite rightly so.  If we,  the tax payers have funded the development of our forests,  then the penalties for taking it out of the "scheme",  are equally whopping!!

Not everything,  is always as it seems!

Alec.


----------



## Cuffey (24 January 2011)

The subject has just been covered briefly on the One Show with this wood in Cumbria (Rigg Wood at Coniston) cited as an example of what happens when forests go private--locked gates
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ag...of-Rigg-Wood-could-herald-forests-future.html

My own experience of private forests in Scotland are of locked gates and blocked potential riding routes.


----------



## jodie3 (24 January 2011)

They were talking about it on the radio today and saying how sad it would be if people had to pay to access the woodlands but my understanding was that you had always had to pay to ride in FC woods.

I remember years ago having to pay for a permit to ride in a FC woodland local to me and then been given a key to unlock the gates.

More recently hadn't TROT or one of the other toll ride associations taken over the issuing of permits for the woods?


----------



## JessandCharlie (24 January 2011)

Lots of signs in our local wood saying it may be sold off. That will be my only area to hack in - gone. 

I really don't want to have to stay on roads, it's far too dangerous now


----------



## 1stclassalan (24 January 2011)

sussexbythesea said:



			Not exactly a surprise with this government - they would sell their grandma to make a few quid. 

I think it will be devastating for some areas especially as it seems only pedestrian access will have any protection. Those of you relying on Forestry riding had better start lobbying now - Big Society more like BS!.

Personally at the moment I am more worried about losing my job,  rising inflation and not being able to keep my horse or house.
		
Click to expand...

Number One - Don't blame the Government - well, at least the bit of it that SOME people vote for. The bit you want to be afraid of - is the Civil Service - they originate all the ideas!

Number Two - The Forestry Commission is a Governmental Body that tries to make out it's a cuddly environmentally ( and sometimes ) horseyfriendly benevolent society when it isn't - they are full of their own importance and will clear fell great swathes of woodlands on a whim - all neatly cut into sizes that fit fence panels.

Number Three - The writing has been on the wall ( well on the trees at least ) for some years following their attempts at CHARGING horseys for using their woods - they're not THEIR WOODS - They're OURS! Horseys folk have a Right to go in them! Agreeing to pay a single penny signs away years of free access.

Number Four - Privatisation, per se - is not in itself a bad thing - remember what old folks used to say about the Railways running on time? They were privately owned but c**cked up by Government creating British Rail.


----------



## PennyJ (24 January 2011)

jodie3 said:



			They were talking about it on the radio today and saying how sad it would be if people had to pay to access the woodlands but my understanding was that you had always had to pay to ride in FC woods.

I remember years ago having to pay for a permit to ride in a FC woodland local to me and then been given a key to unlock the gates.

More recently hadn't TROT or one of the other toll ride associations taken over the issuing of permits for the woods?
		
Click to expand...

Riding in the New Forest (managed by the Forestry Commission) whether on heathland on in the Inclosures (woodland) is Free...  They did try some years back to try and make riders pay for a permit, but it all collapsed around them, I think it was found to be illegal...


----------



## competitiondiva (24 January 2011)

Just a query there's talk that ramblers will have to pay to use the footpaths in the 'owned' forest, if this is the case, are they going to make it that farmers can charge ramblers to walk across their pathss????  If not it's hipocracy.....!!!!

I think for such a little gain to the government we'd loose far too much in our heritage, didn't another country do this and all their forests are now owned by Japan or something???!!!  

Also where next, selling your local parks off????


----------



## Sussexbythesea (24 January 2011)

1stclassalan said:



			Number One - Don't blame the Government - well, at least the bit of it that SOME people vote for. The bit you want to be afraid of - is the Civil Service - they originate all the ideas!

Number Two - The Forestry Commission is a Governmental Body that tries to make out it's a cuddly environmentally ( and sometimes ) horseyfriendly benevolent society when it isn't - they are full of their own importance and will clear fell great swathes of woodlands on a whim - all neatly cut into sizes that fit fence panels.

Number Three - The writing has been on the wall ( well on the trees at least ) for some years following their attempts at CHARGING horseys for using their woods - they're not THEIR WOODS - They're OURS! Horseys folk have a Right to go in them! Agreeing to pay a single penny signs away years of free access.

Number Four - Privatisation, per se - is not in itself a bad thing - remember what old folks used to say about the Railways running on time? They were privately owned but c**cked up by Government creating British Rail.
		
Click to expand...

1) I'll blame who I like!

2) Actually the Civil Service and any other ALB have been completely gagged by this government and are forbidden to disagree with ministers.  So what you have just said is utter c**p. In fact the Public Bodies reform bill gives them powers to get rid of any public body without public consultation - that's democracy for you! So the Civil Service and ALB's with experts in their fields are not allowed to influence government - instead we have individual MP's with their own political agendas and no expertise making decisions on things they have no knowledge of.

3) Why don't you read this sure it's a bit longer than a Daily Mail article but I'm sure you'll manage. 

http://www.epolitix.com/legislation...ewsarticle/public-bodies-reform-bill-2010-11/

4) Every penny that the government or taxpayers gives the Civil Service or ALB's ends up back driving the economy one way or another through spending it in private business - your a fool if you think any different - hundreds if not thousands of private businesses that rely heavily on Government contracts from major capital works to stationary will have noticed a dramatic decrease in revenue and many will go to the wall. The rest paid in salaries ends up back in the economy as well - no  one I know has made enough money in the public sector to have an offshore bank account.

5) Maybe if private industry did not fiddle their books and do so many cash-in-hand jobs without paying tax maybe we would be in the debt we are in? Funny most of the people I know who work in the private sector have much bigger houses, second homes and a nice pot of money in the bank. They are welcome to it because their jobs are often boring and with no satisfaction of doing anything worthwhile.


----------



## 1stclassalan (25 January 2011)

sussexbythesea said:



			Why don't you read this sure it's a bit longer than a Daily Mail article but I'm sure you'll manage.
		
Click to expand...

Ha,ha,ha - how I love the Interweb! The Daily Mail isn't fit to blanch celery!




			- no  one I know has made enough money in the public sector to have an offshore bank account.
		
Click to expand...

Ah.... I fear that this is part of many a thread I've seen with your name on it. There are over 260 Civil Servants being paid more than the Prime Minister and more than a few on three times as much. 

M.P.'s might like to think that they run the country but as the civil service write all the laws and control all information - there's very little that gets done which isn't absolutely to their liking.




			Maybe if private industry did not fiddle their books and do so many cash-in-hand jobs without paying tax maybe we would be in the debt we are in? Funny most of the people I know who work in the private sector have much bigger houses, second homes and a nice pot of money in the bank. They are welcome to it because their jobs are often boring and with no satisfaction of doing anything worthwhile.
		
Click to expand...

The Civil Service regular fiddles figures - massages if you like - take a look at the Olympic Games or the Dome - Nuclear Power - many more - they're all the same - fiddled.
The present world wide financial problems have been brought about by ALL governments misunderstanding how capitalism works and thinking that the bankers could provide them with limitless growth without pain.


----------



## perfect11s (25 January 2011)

sussexbythesea said:



			1) I'll blame who I like!

2) Actually the Civil Service and any other ALB have been completely gagged by this government and are forbidden to disagree with ministers.  So what you have just said is utter c**p. In fact the Public Bodies reform bill gives them powers to get rid of any public body without public consultation - that's democracy for you! So the Civil Service and ALB's with experts in their fields are not allowed to influence government - instead we have individual MP's with their own political agendas and no expertise making decisions on things they have no knowledge of.

3) Why don't you read this sure it's a bit longer than a Daily Mail article but I'm sure you'll manage. 

http://www.epolitix.com/legislation...ewsarticle/public-bodies-reform-bill-2010-11/

4) Every penny that the government or taxpayers gives the Civil Service or ALB's ends up back driving the economy one way or another through spending it in private business - your a fool if you think any different - hundreds if not thousands of private businesses that rely heavily on Government contracts from major capital works to stationary will have noticed a dramatic decrease in revenue and many will go to the wall. The rest paid in salaries ends up back in the economy as well - no  one I know has made enough money in the public sector to have an offshore bank account.

5) Maybe if private industry did not fiddle their books and do so many cash-in-hand jobs without paying tax maybe we would be in the debt we are in? Funny most of the people I know who work in the private sector have much bigger houses, second homes and a nice pot of money in the bank. They are welcome to it because their jobs are often boring and with no satisfaction of doing anything worthwhile.
		
Click to expand...

 Oh how I would love some cushy overpaid job pushing paper for the gubermint, but  sadly some of us have to do things that make the money to pay the taxes that pay for the services that we need, you know that strange concept that we need to  make something or offer a service to jonny foreiner, export something ie.. metal bashed into  machines,something artistic, banking even!!  because we can not just take in each others washing ..have to make money not just spend it!!! yes I know its a strange concept after 13 years of a goverment  that  believed there was  limitless money to waste....


----------



## Faithkat (25 January 2011)

amymay said:



			I actually think that the sale by the Forestry Comission is probably illegal - and I'd love to see it challenged in the courts.
		
Click to expand...

There's been a bit of panic re the New Forest but considering the FC don't actually own it (it's Crown Land) and only manage it, it's not theirs to sell!  I wonder how much land they do actually own  . . . .


----------



## Hullaballoo (26 January 2011)

I am helping with a campaign in East Anglia to ensure that horse riders will not lose their access to forests if, as seems likely, the Sell off goes ahead.
Forestry Commission was formed in the 1920s at a time of timber shortage following the First World War. They began planting forests, which took a generation to mature. Of course FC cuts down trees, they have to harvest them for timber. But they also replant.
FC are currently the largest single supplier of timber in the UK. They are also the largest single provider of outdoor recreation in the UK: this includes walking, horse riding, cycling, husky racing, orienteering, not to mention picnic sites, camp sites, adventure sites etc.
At one time horse riders had to pay FC for a permit and wear a tabard. In 2001 the BHS made a concessionary agreement (Concordat) with FC which granted horseriders free access to FC land.
DEFRA has told us that if FC land is sold, the new owner will be under no obligation to continue granting access to horseriders.
If you ride or enter events on FC land, or would like to help those of us lucky enough to do so, please contact your MP to say how important it is for horse riders to have free access to the safe off-road environment offered by forestry.
You can contact your MP via the 38degrees Save our Forests website.


----------



## 1stclassalan (26 January 2011)

Hullaballoo said:



			I am helping with a campaign in East Anglia to ensure that horse riders will not lose their access to forests if, as seems likely, the Sell off goes ahead.
Forestry Commission was formed in the 1920s at a time of timber shortage following the First World War. They began planting forests, which took a generation to mature. Of course FC cuts down trees, they have to harvest them for timber. But they also replant.
FC are currently the largest single supplier of timber in the UK. They are also the largest single provider of outdoor recreation in the UK: this includes walking, horse riding, cycling, husky racing, orienteering, not to mention picnic sites, camp sites, adventure sites etc.
At one time horse riders had to pay FC for a permit and wear a tabard. In 2001 the BHS made a concessionary agreement (Concordat) with FC which granted horseriders free access to FC land.
DEFRA has told us that if FC land is sold, the new owner will be under no obligation to continue granting access to horseriders.
If you ride or enter events on FC land, or would like to help those of us lucky enough to do so, please contact your MP to say how important it is for horse riders to have free access to the safe off-road environment offered by forestry.
You can contact your MP via the 38degrees Save our Forests website.
		
Click to expand...


I started a campaign when the F.C. first proposed the idea of charging riders to exercise their common rights! However; I became extremely dispondent by over half the other participants accepting the principle in return for promised improvements to bridleways - and my mare dying didn't do much for my enthusiasm either.

Every rider who uses F.C. managed land must look to the ramblers back in the 1920's and 30's who organised mass trespasses to establish The Right to Roam - if they hadn't done that - the countryside would be closed to everyone.


----------



## qwertyuiop (26 January 2011)

I used to be surrounded by beautiful ancient woodlands, none of which I was allowed to walk or ride in by order of the owner. The owner is the Duchy of Lancaster (the Crown). On that basis, a privatised FC cannot be any worse. If anything, it might actually be better as the new owners might let me in for a fee. I'd be happy to pay!


----------



## Cuffey (27 January 2011)

DEFRA Statement and start of consultation

http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/01/27/englands-forests/


----------



## Amymay (27 January 2011)

The Government has already committed to taking 15% of the public forest estate out of state control over the course of this parliament, generating up to £100million of receipts.
		
Click to expand...

Well they could have ensured that there was at least twice that amount (£200million) in the coffers by not scrapping the new fleet of RAF nimrods (which is what it is costing, plus compensation) to cut them up.

This government is crazy, I simply can't get my head round some of the things they are doing to raise money.

Two things which will sort the defecit out in a heartbeat:

Cut (scrap) foreign aid.
Privatise the health system.

Job done.

Oh yes, and block the payment of bank bonuses on the National banks.

There we are - I've just made them billions.  And it really wasn't so tricky......


----------



## spaniel (27 January 2011)

Talk about hysteria....look....its a maximum of 15% of the total woodland....whoever buys it is going to have to see that it at least breaks even as an investment....this means either cropping and replanting or allowing access under either a license or by offering moneymaking facilities such as trails, car parks or lodges......these all exist and run very nicely in existing projects.  Er ....hello.....in the grand scheme of things very little will change.

If the previous government hadnt fecked up the economy this wouldnt be happening.....or would all you labour voters prefer it if we didnt build a couple of schools or hospitals??   Take your pick.


----------



## BHS_official (27 January 2011)

*Please see the News Story below from The British Horse Society website (www.bhs.org.uk) regarding this forum topic:*

*Horse riders add their weight to forestry fight*

The UKs largest equestrian charity, The British Horse Society has pledged its commitment to fight for the future of equestrian access to public forests. 

Equestrian access to thousands of acres of Englands forests could be lost if public forests are sold off as part of the Government's efforts to plug the national deficit. A consultation on the future of the public forest estate opened this morning and the Society is urging all equestrians to respond. 

As it stands, horse riders have access to just 22 percent of public rights of way and horse-drawn vehicle drivers a mere five percent - therefore the loss of any other safe off-road riding opportunities in our forests would be devastating for equestrians if access is not preserved.

The Societys Director of Access, Safety and Welfare, Mark Weston, said: If there is to be a sale of any forest it is important that access for equestrians is secured for future generations before any such sale takes place - if that cannot be assured then we would oppose any sale vigorously.

Now is the time for riders to make their voices heard. It is important that all equestrians respond to the consultation to ensure that equestrian access to our forests is preserved.

The Society is urging all riders to join them in their campaign. Anyone who wishes to be kept up-to-date with the Societys progress should email forestryfight@bhs.org.uk, with the subject title count me in.​
*Thank you!*


----------



## 1stclassalan (28 January 2011)

amymay said:



			Well they could have ensured that there was at least twice that amount (£200million) in the coffers by not scrapping the new fleet of RAF nimrods (which is what it is costing, plus compensation) to cut them up.
		
Click to expand...

The scheme has cost £1.4 billion and is likely to overrun the now four times over budget - all these defence contracts are cost plus so you never know the final figure and just have to cough up until you shout "uncle." That's what the government have just done. I don't like it but I have a vested interest as my old mate is one of the most experienced Nimrod pilots in the world. The British radar inside them is far, far, better than anything else and we ( that's you young folk ) may live to regret scrapping it.)





			Oh yes, and block the payment of bank bonuses on the National banks.
		
Click to expand...

Because bankers who get large bonuses are already higher rate taxpayers - they pay nearly half of every bonus straight to the government ( that's why the governments love them so much! ) This year the banks will pay out £5billion in pay and bonuses - if you stop them, the exchequer will be £2billion down. - Over to you. 

[/QUOTE]


----------



## 1stclassalan (28 January 2011)

spaniel said:



			Talk about hysteria.........If the previous government hadnt fecked up the economy.
		
Click to expand...

It matters not one jot how one votes - the economy of the world is royally fecked up as you so admirally put it.

Once upon a time, we all lived in the trees and had no money, later we learned to walk about and grow things and started bartering with other tribes. Some bright spark discovered gold was shiny and well.... golden, everyone liked it and trade with it but there's only 140,000 tons of it in the entire planet - 35,840 old fashioned ounzes in a ton = even at today's inflated price the final figure is way below the money in circulation around the world and far less than what goes through the London Financial Futures Market EVERY DAY.

Your banknotes may very well ne printed with "I promise to pay the bearer" but it's not really worth the paper it's printed on - it's pie in the sky. Governments of all shades have simply printed all this money on the understanding that the market will constantly supply the mechanism to hold it all together - but it can't. And what we are seeing ( it's not finished yet !) is what happens when a load of money market dealers come in to work all over the world and collectively scream WHAT HAVE WE DONE! 

Go check.


----------



## brighteyes (30 January 2011)

1stclassalan said:



			It matters not one jot how one votes - the economy of the world is royally fecked up as you so admirally put it.

Once upon a time, we all lived in the trees and had no money, later we learned to walk about and grow things and started bartering with other tribes. Some bright spark discovered gold was shiny and well.... golden, everyone liked it and trade with it but there's only 140,000 tons of it in the entire planet - 35,840 old fashioned ounzes in a ton = even at today's inflated price the final figure is way below the money in circulation around the world and far less than what goes through the London Financial Futures Market EVERY DAY.

Your banknotes may very well ne printed with "I promise to pay the bearer" but it's not really worth the paper it's printed on - it's pie in the sky. Governments of all shades have simply printed all this money on the understanding that the market will constantly supply the mechanism to hold it all together - but it can't. And what we are seeing ( it's not finished yet !) is what happens when a load of money market dealers come in to work all over the world and collectively scream WHAT HAVE WE DONE! 

Go check.
		
Click to expand...

And by the sounds of it, when it all collapses around our ears, there aren't going to be any trees left for us to climb back up into to start all over again...


----------



## 1stclassalan (30 January 2011)

brighteyes said:



			And by the sounds of it, when it all collapses around our ears, there aren't going to be any trees left for us to climb back up into to start all over again...
		
Click to expand...

Well, may be not publicly owned trees eh?

The whole business is a problem for the young generations. Money has got civilisation ( or what passes for it ) this far but I can't see any way of preventing boom and bust in economies. In future, people will also have to deal with true globalisation - getting rid of false political boundaries - only then will there be the possibility of looking after the Planet properly.

If you're young - good luck!


----------



## Cuffey (30 January 2011)

Protest in Grizedale Forest today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-12318218


----------



## Mike007 (30 January 2011)

The Forestry commision has failed disgracefully in its role of managing its forests . Much of the timber is just pulp wood due to lack of thinning and suchlike. The MOD complained that the FC were not looking after the timber on Sennybridge range and decided to take it back . The FC basicly trashed the place on their way out ,chopped down practicaly everything.I welcome the sales.


----------



## cptrayes (30 January 2011)

Mike007 said:



			The Forestry commision has failed disgracefully in its role of managing its forests . Much of the timber is just pulp wood due to lack of thinning and suchlike. The MOD complained that the FC were not looking after the timber on Sennybridge range and decided to take it back . The FC basicly trashed the place on their way out ,chopped down practicaly everything.I welcome the sales.
		
Click to expand...

I'm interested in that Mike, because I have been racking my brains as to why this makes sense. £15m a year that the Forestry Commission costs won't go down by much and is too little to be worth bothering with (unlike Nimrod which was going to cost £4m a year to keep in operation when it finally got delivered, and drones/satellite  will do that job better and cheaper). The possible £250 million to come in will be drastically reduced by selling fees and is a one-off that will do nothing for the economy. So ..... why the sale, there have to be reasons that we aren't being told. 

I've dug a bit and found out that lots of Forestry Commission forests are badly managed and need a lot of money spent on them to bring them up to scratch. Also that the UN have decreed 2011 to be the International Year of the Forest. My guess is that if we keep the badly managed stuff in public ownership, that a shedload of ADDITIONAL money will be required to meet EU/UN standards and it THAT money that the government want to avoid having to spend. 

Anyone know any more than that?


----------



## PeterNatt (30 January 2011)

Every now and then myself and some of my friends take our horses to Forestry Commission forests such as Thetford Forest, Ashridge Forest and a number of others to ride in them as it allows us some complete off the road riding.

I am concerned that the government intend to sell them off as at present, riders in the East of England enjoy access to Forest Enterprise owned woods free of charge.  This also includes parking for our horseboxes and trailers.

I am concerned that any new owner will introduce permits or even completely close the forests to riders. Walkers will continue to enjoy access as of a right.
I would like the Government to ensure that established bridleways and byways through the forests are recorded on the definitive map (and hence safeguarded from the whims of any future landowner) before any sale. I would also like the forest land to be dedicated as access land with rights for equestrians, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This would retain free access to forests on horseback (subject to closure possibilities for a limited number of days per year when operations were needed for example).

There are about 4.3 million people in Great Britain that regularly ride horses yet we only have access to 22% of the public rights of way as the vast majority of them are of public footpath status only and horse riders are not allowed to use them.


----------



## Orangehorse (31 January 2011)

The Agriculture Minister said that all access rights would be retained.  However, most equestrian access - riding and driving - is not by right, but by permission whether or not there is a permit scheme in place.  There are some forests with common rights and of course there are bridlepaths, but the long trails round the woodland have been by permission only.

The decision to charge permits for riding in FC woodland has been down to topography (type of soil), numbers of riders and potential damage to the paths and plain and simple policy of different areas manager.  So it has been free to ride in Mortimer Forest as it is light soil and there isn't much useage by riders, yet there has always been a permit scheme in the Wyre Forest where it is close to a large population and the soil is clay.

I don't know about how the FC has managed the woodland, I know they have had a difficult job to do to run a commercial activity, plus wildlife and environmental concerns and public access for walkers, cyclists and horses.  A previous Conservative government thought about selling off the FC and backed down due to public outcry.

However, for EQUESTRIAN access there is a real threat if the FC is sold off.  It is so much easier for a landowner to say "no horses" rather than provide parking, consider different routes, trail maintenance.  So we have all got to reply to the consultation document (details in the BHS reply to this thread) and write to your MP.  The address is
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.


----------



## Spudlet (31 January 2011)

This is an interesting summary of the situation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jan/31/forests-sell-off-opposition

The consultation itself is one of the worst I have ever read - fuzzy, woolly, with no section to comment on whether you think they should actually be sold or not. So I'm not filling it in, I'm just going to send them a letter instead (this is perfectly allowable). They will love getting all these, I promise

From the article above:



			Nearly 20 years ago it was the Ramblers who halted the privatisation of the woods under another Tory government, but this year they seemed to wobble as the government gave more and more assurances. Last week they claimed that the debate had to "move beyond the discussion of public v private ownership, to the real issue of access and enjoyment of all woodland". Now, Tom Franklin, their director, has come out fighting, urging all members to take part in the consultation exercise:


"The current proposals will largely protect access to heritage woodland such as the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, and even large commercial woodland like Kielder Forest in Northumberland. *However, roughly 50% of the Forestry Commission estate currently falls into neither "heritage" nor "large commercial" categories, and this half could end up for sale in the open market with no guarantees that current access will be maintained.* With 50% of all Forestry Commission land falling outside of the categorisation of heritage and community woodland or large commercial forests, we could see access to half of the Forestry Commission estate seriously reduced in the next few years."
		
Click to expand...

All the FC land I use falls into that category, I suspect the same is true for many people.

I think it's a disgrace, I don't normally get areated about these things, but this has got me cross If this goes through, the Government can forget my vote in future.


----------



## Orangehorse (31 January 2011)

Apparently there is a vote in Parliament this week as to whether there should be a sell-off or not.

You can also send an email to your MP, you don't have to put pen to paper.


----------



## Cuffey (31 January 2011)

The Official Statement for Scotland--no sell off here

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/newsrele.nsf/WebNewsReleases/622FAFDE5297AE8080257824004C9439


----------



## Mike007 (31 January 2011)

cptrayes said:



			I'm interested in that Mike, because I have been racking my brains as to why this makes sense. £15m a year that the Forestry Commission costs won't go down by much and is too little to be worth bothering with (unlike Nimrod which was going to cost £4m a year to keep in operation when it finally got delivered, and drones/satellite  will do that job better and cheaper). The possible £250 million to come in will be drastically reduced by selling fees and is a one-off that will do nothing for the economy. So ..... why the sale, there have to be reasons that we aren't being told. 

I've dug a bit and found out that lots of Forestry Commission forests are badly managed and need a lot of money spent on them to bring them up to scratch. Also that the UN have decreed 2011 to be the International Year of the Forest. My guess is that if we keep the badly managed stuff in public ownership, that a shedload of ADDITIONAL money will be required to meet EU/UN standards and it THAT money that the government want to avoid having to spend. 

Anyone know any more than that?
		
Click to expand...

Forestry is central to my business. The timber I buy generaly (practicaly exclusively )comes from well managed private estates , such as the Engelfield estate an the paddockhurst estate. they are a far cry from the typical scrappy forestry comission timber. The principle directive of the forestry commision was to make the UK self sufficient in timber (apart from exotics).It could easily have achieved this but has spectacularly failed. It is overloaded with fat cats at the expense of tree cultivation. The FC is a national disgrace. We will all be better off with private ownership by estates that care . As for access, go on the "walking with wolves" at the Engelfield estate Yes real wolves,


----------



## attheponies (31 January 2011)

Surely the answer in that case is to improve the managment of FC woodland not sell/lease to the highest bidder with the loss of public access. I speak as a regular user of (Thetford Forest).


----------



## Mike007 (31 January 2011)

attheponies said:



			Surely the answer in that case is to improve the managment of FC woodland not sell/lease to the highest bidder with the loss of public access. I speak as a regular user of (Thetford Forest).
		
Click to expand...

You ride along paths within the forest ,the forest itself is the problem, ,the Fc are useless at maintaining it. Private owners are not going to be particularly concerned with your riding along a forstry track ,but rather how their investment (the timber ) is managed.


----------



## attheponies (1 February 2011)

Sorry but perhaps I have a rather more jaundiced view of private owners than you have. In my experience very few private owners of any land ever welcome anyone else on to it!


----------



## Mike007 (1 February 2011)

attheponies said:



			Surely the answer in that case is to improve the managment of FC woodland not sell/lease to the highest bidder with the loss of public access. I speak as a regular user of (Thetford Forest).
		
Click to expand...

I used to know thetford well,it was one of the better maintained forests. Unfortunately there are an awfull lot of badly maintained forests crying out for thinning , yet local woodsmen cannot get a look in because of the monolith that is the "forestry commision"Smash it and burn it , thats what needs to happen to the forestry comission ,for all the good they do .


----------



## Spudlet (2 February 2011)

It's being debated right now


----------



## Flame_ (2 February 2011)

Spudlet said:



			I think it's a disgrace, I don't normally get areated about these things, but this has got me cross If this goes through, the Government can forget my vote in future.
		
Click to expand...

Yep, that goes for me too. First time I've ever written to an MP about anything, let alone watched the live Parliament channel.


----------



## Orangehorse (2 February 2011)

Mike, I am afraid that most private owners and even charities do not allow horses.  There are Forest Enterprise woods around here that have paddlocked gates, yet nice wide tracks that would be perfect for riding.  The Woodland Trust, English Nature, National Trust and local charities do not have a good record of allow equestrian access, in this part of the world.  One local nature trust closed a bridlepath, legally, yet allowed walkers.

So I am very worried about this.  I had a standard letter in reply from my MP, which didn't address my concerns at all.


----------



## Tinkerbee (2 February 2011)

I've signed the petition and been badgering my MP for a good few weeks now...

I think the FC should get their mits off a lot of what they "manage" but this is not the best way. FC are poor but things could be worse.

Can't say loss of access is my worry though, if I was an MP I wouldn't be listening to people bleating that they won't be able to walk Tiddles/ride Merrylegs through their local forest anymore.


----------



## Flame_ (2 February 2011)

Tinkerbee said:



			Can't say loss of access is my worry though, if I was an MP I wouldn't be listening to people bleating that they won't be able to walk Tiddles/ride Merrylegs through their local forest anymore. 

Click to expand...

Well if you were you damn well should do because you are supposed to be representing peoples views and concerns.


----------



## Spudlet (2 February 2011)

Access is a big issue TB. The last time this was on the table, it was the Ramblers that scuppered it. You are looking at a wide range of people from all background losing something they hold dear, in a time when other things are being taken away left right and centre, AND at a policy that could lead to a net loss for the Treasury, in a policy that the forestry industry thinks is crazy, and they risk upsetting the National Trust, an organisation that has 3 million members... that's before you take the BHS into account, and all the other organisations that are against this.

I have been a civil servant, believe me this is not what the government wants. It will be taking up way too much of their time and effort. Nobody likes to be disliked...


----------



## Tinkerbee (2 February 2011)

Flame_ said:



			Well if you were you damn well should do because you are supposed to be representing peoples views and concerns.
		
Click to expand...

Ok, fair point, hence why I'm not an MP.  I would think such worries were more than a tad selfish and would put more stock in those worried about the actual forests...


----------



## Tinkerbee (2 February 2011)

Spudlet said:



			Access is a big issue TB. The last time this was on the table, it was the Ramblers that scuppered it. You are looking at a wide range of people from all background losing something they hold dear, in a time when other things are being taken away left right and centre, AND at a policy that could lead to a net loss for the Treasury, in a policy that the forestry industry thinks is crazy, and they risk upsetting the National Trust, an organisation that has 3 million members... that's before you take the BHS into account, and all the other organisations that are against this.

I have been a civil servant, believe me this is not what the government wants. It will be taking up way too much of their time and effort. Nobody likes to be disliked...
		
Click to expand...

I agree it's an issue, and if it's one that gets the plans scrapped then so be it. But like your sig says, I'm more bothered about saving the Forests than my access to them. Yes the access is fantastic. But I'd rather they existed without access than didn't exist at all...


----------



## Spudlet (2 February 2011)

It's one part of the whole picture. The bodies I mentioned and others will be making a fully rounded case. That's how these things work - generally there is one reason that the public latch onto, but the pros make a rounded case looking at many different aspects of the issue and citing evidence. However public support is crucial - that is what grabs the politicians by the short and curlies, then the pros leap in there and bash them with all the evidence and so on.


----------



## Tinkerbee (2 February 2011)

Spudlet said:



			It's one part of the whole picture. The bodies I mentioned and others will be making a fully rounded case. That's how these things work - generally there is one reason that the public latch onto, but the pros make a rounded case looking at many different aspects of the issue and citing evidence. However public support is crucial - that is what grabs the politicians by the short and curlies, then the pros leap in there and bash them with all the evidence and so on.
		
Click to expand...

Oh I don't doubt that it is being done properly by the people that matter but I'm getting sick of seeing people whingeing on the news solely about access. 
Its my pet peeve atm so I like to moan as well.


----------



## Alec Swan (4 February 2011)

So the Government wants to raise £250 mil by selling of our State owned forestry,  do they?.......  

They could raise 6 times that amount by the forced sale of Banker's second homes........

They could save a similar amount,  annually,  by removing our military operations,  from the the lands of others,  where we have no business being.

It wouldn't do for me to be the Prime Minister,  I'd consider the views of the public,  and that wouldn't do,  at all!! 

Alec.


----------



## tristar (4 February 2011)

i think there is some arguement for our troops in other lands, take  people like hitler who overran europe for example,  we would have been next, and now speaking german, except we were saved by the american intervention joining our troops in the normandy beaches invasions,, maybe if we had acted sooner instead of living in political cloud cuckoo land 10,000 amercans would not be dead and buried at omaha beach, and whatever the position one takes on troops fighting abroad on some level  these brave lads are hopefully helping to secure the future of democracy and life as we know it, and at least dictators out there will be aware that they will not get away with terrorism, oppression,corruption and bullying etc unchallenged.

is there not established rights of way and bridle paths already in existantance in all the forestry comm. i thought if the right is maintained by regular use no one can stop the continuation?


----------



## Mike007 (4 February 2011)

tristar said:



			i think there is some arguement for our troops in other lands, take  people like hitler who overran europe for example,  we would have been next, and now speaking german, except we were saved by the american intervention joining our troops in the normandy beaches invasions,, maybe if we had acted sooner instead of living in political cloud cuckoo land 10,000 amercans would not be dead and buried at omaha beach, and whatever the position one takes on troops fighting abroad on some level  these brave lads are hopefully helping to secure the future of democracy and life as we know it, and at least dictators out there will be aware that they will not get away with terrorism, oppression,corruption and bullying etc unchallenged.

is there not established rights of way and bridle paths already in existantance in all the forestry comm. i thought if the right is maintained by regular use no one can stop the continuation?
		
Click to expand...

Ah yes the great american 42/45 war, a bit like trhe 16/ 18 war .


----------



## Orangehorse (4 February 2011)

There are indeed bridlepaths in forests, and they will continue to be rights of way.  However, following a bridlepath that crosses from one side of a wood to the other and out onto the road again as of right, and maintained by the County Council, is not the same as having a large parking area and waymarked, circular rides (that might include the bridlepath) and can be from 5-15 miles in length and which are maintained by Forestry Commission staff.

I can see all sorts of platitudes about "mainainting access" and the new owners/managers stopping trailer parking, or increasing the cost of a permit or not maintaining the routes and gradually make it more and more difficult for horses to use the woods.

There is no benefit for a landowner to have horses crossing their land (and that includes having a bridlepath on your land too).  It would be impossible to charge enough to make it economically worthwhile, so why would a private landowner want horses in the first place?  Walkers do not do damage to paths and if there is a cafe they spend money there.  A horse arrives in a trailer and goes home again when they are finished, riders rarely go and spend money int he cafe as they don't like leaving the horse unattended in a public parking place.

That is my objection to the sell off of the Forestry Commission, I can't see private owners wishing to put up with the bother of having horses.


----------



## Spudlet (4 February 2011)

It is the same for walkers, they may well keep footpaths but there seems no guarantee that free access, as is enjoyed now, will be maintained. So you can stick to the path but don't dare step off it.

Rigg Wood in Cumbria was sold under the previous government, now riders no longer have access. This could happen in other places as well. It's all very well for people in areas with good off-road walking and riding to scoff, for some areas these forests are really important.


----------



## Mike007 (4 February 2011)

Never confuse walkers with ramblers . ramblers are truely the scum of the earth. The march about the countryside telling everyone else how to behave to their wishes. Truely ********s.


----------



## Fragglerock (4 February 2011)

sussexbythesea said:



			5) Maybe if private industry did not fiddle their books and do so many cash-in-hand jobs without paying tax maybe we would be in the debt we are in? Funny most of the people I know who work in the private sector have much bigger houses, second homes and a nice pot of money in the bank. They are welcome to it because their jobs are often boring and with no satisfaction of doing anything worthwhile.
		
Click to expand...

As a business owner teetering on the brink I think this is a most objectional bigoted comment spoken by someone who is oh so ignorant in the ways of the world.

No fat cat redundancies for us unlike some of the public sector.


----------



## Dobiegirl (5 February 2011)

Please read this www.flyubley.co.uk if this is repeated up and down the country after FC sell off no one will have access. Also whats the betting the government dont lend other charities money to buy.


----------



## gnomeking (5 February 2011)

i hope we can stop this -V - and glad to see so many sensible and concerned views here.

the money raised is small (compared to some unpaid big business tax (for example)

While for previous generations fighting Fascism was urgent and ethically motivated, unlike the *International Brigade*, *The French Resistance* and others, the US led invasion of Iraq (and both Gulf Wars) was orchestrated by commercial interest, lying governments, and massive abuses of Democratic Process back here in 'the west'....Saddam Hussein was encouraged by Bush Snr into a conflict with Kuwait-The US then used this as an excuse to invade the region and critical oil resources....

In the UK we are still asking "*where are the WMDs Tony*?"

World wide the link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein is still being questioned.
What has been achieved in Iraq in the last decade?
Is this really a winnable war for 'democracy'......

but I digress...

lol!:forced sell -off of bankers second homes - i like that 

or Cut Trident...


Re-rights of way on private land...

Yes rights of way are present - but it was not so long ago that public action was need to make sure they continued....several were lost during Foot n' Mouth because "they were not being used"......once land is privately owned it is easier and easier for minor rights of way to be lost forever....so specific new protection might be required, if this allowed to happen at all.

This is (IMO) a philosophical and politically motivated policy - Conservative Government seeks to reduce Governmental Public Responsibilities to an absolute minimum, regardless of consequences or long term damage.



Oh - and we could save money by not using undercover police to infiltrate non-violent environmental protest groups and deliberately provoking trouble....every little helps 

_Footnote: @Mike007 > are you the same worrying physco who was advocating trampling protesters with horses a couple of months back? shanti mike, shanti_


----------



## Tinkerbee (5 February 2011)

ORANGEHORSE said:



			There are indeed bridlepaths in forests, and they will continue to be rights of way.  However, following a bridlepath that crosses from one side of a wood to the other and out onto the road again as of right, and maintained by the County Council, is not the same as having a large parking area and waymarked, circular rides (that might include the bridlepath) and can be from 5-15 miles in length and which are maintained by Forestry Commission staff.

I can see all sorts of platitudes about "mainainting access" and the new owners/managers stopping trailer parking, or increasing the cost of a permit or not maintaining the routes and gradually make it more and more difficult for horses to use the woods.

There is no benefit for a landowner to have horses crossing their land (and that includes having a bridlepath on your land too).  It would be impossible to charge enough to make it economically worthwhile, so why would a private landowner want horses in the first place?  Walkers do not do damage to paths and if there is a cafe they spend money there.  A horse arrives in a trailer and goes home again when they are finished, riders rarely go and spend money int he cafe as they don't like leaving the horse unattended in a public parking place.

That is my objection to the sell off of the Forestry Commission, I can't see private owners wishing to put up with the bother of having horses.
		
Click to expand...

In what world do walkers not damage paths?


----------



## gnomeking (6 February 2011)

???

yes lets keep walkers off paths to save them from damage.

i keep my sofa wrapped in plastic...wouldn't want to damage it by sitting on it would I....duh.


----------



## Tinkerbee (6 February 2011)

gnomeking said:



			???

yes lets keep walkers off paths to save them from damage.

i keep my sofa wrapped in plastic...wouldn't want to damage it by sitting on it would I....duh.
		
Click to expand...

One could view woodland as somewhere for people to walk, and tramp about as they like. 

Personally, I am also aware of the many valuable species that reside in our woodland. Walking causes erosion of paths, plants can be trampled and compaction of soil can lead to root damage of things like trees. Why do you think they cordoned off the Major Oak? 

However the wording of your post suggests you don't care about such things.
I'm not saying ban all walkers (well..  ) but to state that they cause no damage to paths or otherwise is utterly wrong. 

Look at Kinder Scout, once the site of the Mass Trespass...


----------



## perfect11s (6 February 2011)

Fragglerock said:



			As a business owner teetering on the brink I think this is a most objectional bigoted comment spoken by someone who is oh so ignorant in the ways of the world.

No fat cat redundancies for us unlike some of the public sector.
		
Click to expand...

 sadly these clowns that "work"  in the public sector havent a clue about real life Cut cut and cut and we will still be strangeld by red tape the real problem is the money we p up the wall being involved with the EU and giving fortunes in "aid"  to dictators to top up swiss bank acounts or for arms to blow other tribes up Sorry  Camoron is just fiddleing round the edges we need a conservative goverment  ... Oh sorry where were we....  forrestry sell off  im with mike007 and not the millitant trots  that seemed to have sliped in here with their daft views and every thing is wrong now gordon and nu liebour arnt in spraying money we  havent got about  .


----------



## fusaberry (9 February 2011)

PLEASE Don't sell our forests , they are part of our heritage, our life.I like quite a few thousand others , am horse rider and in a lot of cases this is the only place we can ride in safety.Our roads are dangerous, THE HORSE WAS HERE BEFORE THE CAR BUT WE HAVE NO OR LITTLE RESPECT FROM A LOT OF ROAD USERS.
IT IS A PRIVILEGE THAT WE ARE ON THIS PLANET SO WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO "OWN " WHAT MOTHER EARTH GAVE NATURALLY
We don't trash the ground like motorbikes and quads do , I can't speak for everyone but we ,as horse riders are well aware of our tentative hold on life , subject to weather and the fagility of this planet,after all riding half a ton of horse with a mind of its own can be rewarding as well as hard work.we put a lot into enjoying our sport and recreation.So we try to abide to the countryside code to enjoy this .
I was riding along a quiet road a few weeks ago and a lorry wing mirror clipped my leg, There was plenty of room on the road,nothing parked the other side. I was right in the gutter, unfortunately there was no verge only a wall.luckily and i say this in all humility,my horse was absolutely astounding, she moved sideways and kept me in the saddle, I am sure she did it to help me .I was so thankful, it could have been a lot worse.she is only a youngster, have had her since a foal.I sustained a badly bruised thigh  and knee.I have to ride to cannock chase about 3 miles away and then we can enjoy a lovely stress free amble and  .If I lost this forest I would be then confined to the field and roads.
PLEASE KEEP OUR FORESTS FOR ALL TO ENJOY NOT JUST THE PRIVILEGED FEWW WHO WILL LOCK THEM AWAY FOR ONLY WALKERS, BIKERS AND QUADS TO USE


----------



## lazybee (9 February 2011)

When I think of forests in the UK I think of massive conifer plantations, which is what most of them are, barren conifer plantations like Thetford forest planted on ancient heathland (or Breckland locally)  It really depends on what controls are in place to protect native ancient woodlands and mixed deciduous trees. If a conservation group where to buy a conifer plantation and turn it into a mixed woodland habitat I'm all for it. We should be more concerned with the loss of heath and wetlands rather than a few conifers.


----------



## Tinkerbee (9 February 2011)

lazybee said:



			When I think of forests in the UK I think of massive conifer plantations, which is what most of them are, barren conifer plantations like Thetford forest planted on ancient heathland (or Breckland locally)  It really depends on what controls are in place to protect native ancient woodlands and mixed deciduous trees. If a conservation group where to buy a conifer plantation and turn it into a mixed woodland habitat I'm all for it. We should be more concerned with the loss of heath and wetlands rather than a few conifers.
		
Click to expand...

Oh my GOD. Someone with sense!


----------

