Forest School Closed - what is the story here?

[Billy-o]

Does anyone know more about this story? I would imagine there are good arguments either side, but who knows

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...d-for-evicting-a-forest-school-from-its-woods

 

[Broch]

Does anyone know more about this story? I would imagine there are good arguments either side, but who knows

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...d-for-evicting-a-forest-school-from-its-woods

I don't know any information other than that published but there are always two sides to this kind of story and a third truth!

I have a concern in general about this 'let's get everyone into the woods' attitude that's suddenly running through the UK. We do not have a lot of woodland in the UK and woodland is a fragile environment; very few people actually appreciate the care needed.

But I also would love more kids to get the opportunity to experience it - a bit of a paradox.

 

[quietone]

Yep. There is also the type of self professed bushcrafter that also has no clue. Apart from what he's seen the likes of bare frills do. That type can also rack up a fair share of damage to our woodlands.

 

[Toddy]

I have worked with a couple of 'forest schools'.
It is noticeable to those like me, who are occasional visitors to the sites the groups use, that over time the flora is damaged, the land is marked by footfall traffic, paths are very evident, debris is 'cleared' creating more of a 'well used' space. The use slowly erodes the understorey, slowly compacts the earth around favoured routes and spaces. Compaction damages the soil structure, the micro life that inhabits it, the roots, the mychorrhiza, etc.,
It all slowly adds up, even if the group is infant school children. You can see it in extremes on public rights of way, on forest walks, hill paths and where folks gather 'kindling' for the wood stoves that are in fashion.

No idea about this specific site, or the group, but that's my tuppence ha'penny worth from noticeable differences in sites over time.

Maybe, since the site is a SSSi, that it really is time to take stock and think hard about constant (and by the sounds of it this is at least very regular) use of scheduled land.

M

 

[Fadcode]

looking at the photographs in that article it doesn't look like the woods are properly managed and need a lot of work, these kids (school) have probably been told to leave to minimise the risk and liability, and prevent the Nat Trust from spending time and money to make the place safe, I visit a lot of woods in Cornwall run and managed by the Nat Trust, and I am disgusted by the state of them, some are too dangerous to walk through and are totally mis-managed.There advert for this woods invites people to cycle, ride(horses) walk and run through the place, I cant see how a bunch of school kids can do that much damage really.

 

[Broch]

Unfortunately that is one of the issues - managed for conservation and managed for recreation are almost at opposite ends of the scale. If you walked through my wood you would say it was a mess - masses of decaying dead wood, dense understory, dangerous hanging dead wood.

Like quietone said, even people that claim to understand the needs of woods make a total mess of them

 

[Chalkflint]

It will always be a delicate balance between woodland for nature and woodland for people to use for recreation.
As mentioned there are great concerns about the loss of woodland.But there is also great concern about the woodlands being left unmanaged, which in its self can cause problems. So any people utilising these woods adds value and forces the owners to take more of an interest in them and hopefully be beneficial.
It will also depend on the type of woodlands. Kids running around in dense conifers where little grows can not be too much of an issue but people running around ancient woodland where plants can take decades to establish is the opposite end of the spectrum.
We have many Arboretums that we encourage people to visit using defined paths and areas without too many issues. A forest school using a sensibly chosen area and only using defined trails should be do able, as long as the area is allowed to recover and usage is taken into account. 14 children every day for what appears several years in same place has got to be hard on the land.
I notice the National Trust evicted them rather than relocate them within the 200 acres. I believe the NT is on a major restructuring and the amount of tenants they have is one area they are looking at.
Everyone on this forum is all for people getting out and embracing nature in a responsible way. Especially in the current environment of climate change where we need people to see and understand what it is they stand to lose.
Maybe sacrificing small areas of woodland in order to protect the rest is one alternative.
Chalkflint

 

[Laurentius]

I think anybody who has been interested in "Bushcraft" over the years has seen how bushcraftaft as a leisure pursuit has been abused to the detriment of the environment, I expect we have all seen the scars in local woodland, and the bottles and cans left behind as well. Maybe it should be seen as a privelege rather than a right and with proper education the kids of tomorrow will recognise that there are areas that should be left alone.

 

[Janne]

To many people in a small semi wild area = serious damage.

One possible solution is to do most of the education in classrooms, using the excellent aids that exist these days, and then undertake walks on footpaths and reinforce the infirmation learned from there.

 

[Chalkflint]

I agree that TV has glamorised things and the public have embraced it with their own interpretation and created this thing called "Bushcraft".
Whilst this gives us a clear focal point to vent our disapproval I don't think this is a new thing as people have always caused problems in the countryside for as long as I remember. I can remember going up the woods to play as a kid building dens and damming streams. We always destroyed the dams afterwards but not so certain about the dens. (A few kids over the summer sneakily built a den in my wood) Its just now days you have adults doing it with designer gear and building a "shelter" rather than a den.
My dilemma is that I am both a woodland owner and a scout leader so whilst wanting to protect what I have I also want people to experience it.
I think we have to be careful that we don't make peoples experiences of the countryside too sterile. Educating them in the classrooms is always a positive thing and taking them for walks on paths is great. But reading about a lion and going to see one in the zoo will never be the same as seeing one in the wild where you become immersed in the whole experience.
I think getting people out in the countryside and in the thick of it is a better experience and gives them more appreciation of what it is we have.
But as always its finding the balance
Chalkflint

 

[Paul_B]

Dangerous woodland? Too dangerous to walk thorough? Mismanaged? Imagine no humans , what would happen to woodland? Would it be nice and sanitised or overgrowth and fallen branches?

I'm sorry but woodland needs overgrowth and fallen branches. It needs all sorts mess that human recreation doesn't want. I'm no expert but to call woodland too dangerous to walk through takes away your own responsibility to look after yourself in the outdoors. Do you walk under a large branch that looks close to falling or avoid the area? It's nature you cope with it not try to sanitise it to your needs. We'll have no natural land if we tailor it to our activities. Look at Lakeland fells. A beautiful manmade landscape but not natural or wild as it should be perhaps.

 

[Fadcode]

I get your point, but I was referring to the liability of the owners, this is why so many areas are closed, the first thing you do if you own woodland is to make it safe.........isn't it?

 

[Fadcode]

I think anybody who has been interested in "Bushcraft" over the years has seen how bushcraftaft as a leisure pursuit has been abused to the detriment of the environment, I expect we have all seen the scars in local woodland, and the bottles and cans left behind as well. Maybe it should be seen as a privelege rather than a right and with proper education the kids of tomorrow will recognise that there are areas that should be left alone.

I am not sure the scars, bottles, cans etc are left there because people are interested in "Bushcraft", more like the young kids of today have nowhere to go to do their thing, so the local woods to them is ideal, they are left in peace there, all they seem to be interested in is what comes out of a can, not at all interested in their environment.

 

[Paul_B]

the first thing you do if you own woodland is to make it safe.........isn't it?

Is it? Does it not depend on what you own the woods for surely?

In the wilderness areas of the planet with vast tracts of virgin woodland and forests there's nobody to make them safe. Just because our ancient woodlands are small pockets by comparison there's no reason why protecting them requires them to first be made safe.

IMHO if woodland is owned by the state charity that is the national trust as part of the remaining ancient woodland then letting it be is perhaps more important. If that restricts human use for recreation or education then it's a small loss compared to the loss in ancient woodland that has happened in even recent memory.

In this age of liability I personally believe that if you go into nature you are liable for whatever happens to you. It's should not be the national trust's responsibility to keep you safe in their woodland unless they are managing it or altering it for a purpose such as recreation or traditional coppicing/forestry for example. Then it's risk assessment time.

 

[Janne]

No, you do not make a wood 'safe'.
You learn how to BE safe in a natural wood. Type looking up and check the state of the trees around the site where you are going to sleep.
Not running around like Bear G and risk breaking a leg.

Children needs to learn how to show respect for the outdoors, that can be done nicely in a classroom. Plus how to recognize plants, trees, bushes and so on.
Animals, various scat, tracks.

Then go out and put the knowledge into practice.

But first of all, the children needs to be trained to be disciplined and have a sense of responsibility..

 

[Paul_B]

I'm on the same page with this Janne.

In my case outdoor experience was gained by being with me experienced people. By the time I became an adult navigation and safety in the hills was part of my common sense and knowledge. Uni groups and later mountaineering and walking groups came along. I learnt what I could. Before the point I left the various groups I found that somehow others saw me as the experienced person to learn from. That surprised me. I even got asked to run a navigation course once. I declined and a qualified mountain leader friend led it (with my help).

My childhood knowledge of the outdoors was from reading and from my parents who took us out into the great outdoors. Cubs and scouts were a dead loss where I grew up. Leaders didn't know anything. I used to teach other cubs knots when the leaders stepped away for example.

Nowadays it's probably better and more organised. However I suspect there's also more indulgence to the children now than my day. However that doesn't mean you don't teach the basics such as how to be safe outdoors.

 

[Broch]

I get your point, but I was referring to the liability of the owners, this is why so many areas are closed, the first thing you do if you own woodland is to make it safe.........isn't it?

A popular misconception, request and expectation but unsafe woodland is by far more diverse. Trees that could fall over at any time host hundreds of invertebrate species as well as nesting sites for birds and bats. Hanging dead wood, branches that have come off and still hang in the canopy, do the same. Cutting tracks and paths that allow easy access will sever the mycelium that has taken perhaps hundreds of years to develop. No, tidy woods are not good woods from an ecological point of view.

Safely managed woodland is parkland - if that's what people want there is quite a lot of it around but it is not wild or natural. Some of the best natural woodland to be seen in the UK include the Caledonian Forest remnants in NW Scotland (Scots Pine, Birch and Juniper) and the 'Celtic Rainforest' in West Wales (sessile oak, downy birch, ash and hazel). Although there are 'safe' accesses the majority of these woods are far from safe yet they are some of the most richly diverse habitats in the UK.

There are just too many people on this small island (65.64 million) with far too little woodland (13% of land mass) to enable mass access without ruining the biodiversity (and beauty) of what is there.

 

[Robson Valley]

We are expected to learn to be safe in the forest. We have lots and lots of it.
My wilderness schooling was taught by my parents ( fires, camps, hunting, fishing, boating).
I was raised to be independent. It's a family expectation.
By the time I was in university, a 4 month summer, off the grid and 40 miles from any roads was no big deal.

The biggest impact, the worst possible thing that you can do in any woodland is walk on it.
Soil compression changes the ecology and hard packed eroding trails are the perfect example
of environmental destruction. Even old game trails become so obvious.

It's the biggest killer for reforestation. So you will see that all of our logging equipment has huge flotation tires
and we have machine attachments to "fluff up" compacted soils
and that's partly why so much harvest gets done in the winter, floating on the snow.

Read about golf course turf management if you're still sceptical. Major chore.

 

[Laurentius]

Interestingly enough something has come up on our allotments as a conflict of interest H&S and rules and all that. For historical reasons our lease forbids us to to cut down trees. I think there is a problem with that in that the rule was there to protect ancient trees on the site, not all trees on the site. We have a problem with some dangerous branches coming from trees which are not actually on the site itself so I guess we should be cutting those branches down and giving them back to the owner on the other side of the fence, being the Council, who quite simply have neglected that other side of the fence. What needs cutting down really needs a skilled tree surgeon to minimise the danger of damaging anything when they come down. They are not our trees but our insurance would not look kindly on us if we neglected them and they caused an injury. Believe it or not, the guy whose plot is most affected by these trees used to train the SAS in mountain rescue, so he is a dude.

 

[greenshooots]

One possible solution is to do most of the education in classrooms,

we did in my day its was called Rural Sc

Read about golf course turf management if you're still sceptical.
been there done that got the diploma -

greenshoots