I disagree with your comment about the public being quite content with the unmanaged part. Having spent several years in FC office dealing with complaints from different user groups. Regarding management of our countryside. It is just that, managed. Without this mgt input, scrub, woodland and forest would resort to a climax community. So to answer your question, woodlands do not look after themselves. The FC manage as is, as a result of world war/industry demands on our timber resource. Public access is secondary but more valuable than a standing crop in times of peace. It is said that we, this country could only last a few months if we felled every tree in Britain, subject to timber import restrictions, before we would encounter paper shortages that would impact on everyone. Therefor we manage what we have.
The FC have excepted over the last 10 years that one way to manage for public access is in a basic way. By adopting the right to roam on FC land, the responsibility for personal safety underfoot shifted from the FC and the constant need to maintain paths that are all inclusive and often paved with stonechip etc, can now be focused on high priority areas. Any infrastructure, like footpath furniture is inspected and signed off regularly, as some members of the general public wouldn't hesitate to seek damages in the form of compensation. I believe the FC have embraced the green gym concept, opening up cycle routes, advertizing PRW amongst other sport related activities. Some user groups do pay to use the forest, like horse riders. It would be great to have more public money to invest, but like you say. We all have to pay in taxes.
