Ministers plan huge sell-off of Britain's forests

[sandbender]

An article in the Telegraph about plans to dispose of about 750,000 hectares of woodland.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...s-plan-huge-sell-off-of-Britains-forests.html

 

[robin wood]

Yep, this one has been coming for some time. Hopefully will see the silly prices paid for 10 acre woods drop a little, then again it may just see a boom in companies like woodlands co uk making a packet by buying big woods, splitting them up and selling them for inflated prices. Don't suppose forestry commission will be selling in 10 acre parcels.

 

[British Red]

There is perhaps some merit in preserving some rare and historic woodland and landscapes, but the commerial woodlands really have no place being owned and run by governments in my view - any more than we should have any other form of state owned farming. Nice to see that the RSPB take a fairly relaxed view if its the right woodland being sold.

Red

 

[ganstey]

But, almost by definition, they are going to sell off the most profitable bits. That means they'll be left with those bits that are important to the nation, but don't make any money. So they'll have lost their main source of income, but kept their liabilities.

I can understand selling of plantations that aren't currently profitable (however you define profitable), but I can't see how selling off a significant amount of the public estate is sensible on the long term.

G (ex-FC employee)

 

[myheadsashed]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...s-plan-huge-sell-off-of-Britains-forests.html


Do we think this government selling off half our forests is a good thing or a bad thing?


Me - bad

 

[Toddy]

I agree.
For over eight hundred years the 'government' of the day has held the forests in care.
They didn't sit idle and they don't today.
They are also some of the greatest areas of public access to the majority of the population of these islands. Their value far exceeds the financial cost the beancounters would put on them.

Wonder how many of them willl end up owned by folks from other countries ? where they do value their woodlands.

Toddy

 

[sapper1]

Probably a good thing,the FC flatly refuse to allow bushcraft in the forest.Private owners will see ££££ signs and allow us to use it as long as we pay.
It's better to pay to use it than it is to be unable to use it even if you are prepared to pay.

 

[sapper1]

Sell the lot.Then we will be able to use it as long as we pay,as it stands all you can do is walk through them and nothing else.If they are in private hands then we will be able to pay to use the bits that private enterprise doesn't use.

 

[Toddy]

Just now we don't pay (as individuals for access), regardless of whether one is a millionaire or a pauper raising a family on under £100 a week.

Toddy

 

[wanderingblade]

Heard about this the other week.

Apparently productive woodland is becoming an attractive investment proposition - giving somewhere in the region of 16% ROI

If there is a sell off maybe it should be in conunction with a set of regulations preserving access to existing paths / walks that may not have public footpath status. Use of woodland is already strictly restricted so I don't think there is any chance of major damage being done?

 

[Nagual]

Probably a good thing,the FC flatly refuse to allow bushcraft in the forest.Private owners will see ££££ signs and allow us to use it as long as we pay.
It's better to pay to use it than it is to be unable to use it even if you are prepared to pay.

Must depend on where you are, around here and indeed most places up this way, as long as you act responsible then access isn't a problem at all. That aside, I can't help but thinking that by selling off part of the FC that actually makes the government money being a bit daft, a short term gain ( hmmm didn't the Tories do this last time too? ) for long term loss. I don't see the problem of a government ministry making money instead of spending it all, instead of making a few quid on a sell off, and no doubt tax concessions etc for a few years too. Handing over the keys to private companies of this countries forests just doesn't sit right. I might be wrong, perhaps private companies will continue to keep the free access to country walks ect, perhaps they will continue to carry out research in various areas from entomology to climate change. However private companies what to make profits for themselves not the government, so I'm highly cynical here, and can't help but think it's further Tory "Jobs for the Boys" again.

 

[_mark_]

"We are looking to energise our forests by bringing in fresh ideas and investment, and by putting conservation in the hands of local communities."

Just sickening spin that doesn't ring true.

What a sorry state that our primary concern is access rather than preservation of our natural heritage.

 

[sapper1]

Access isn't a problem anywhere on FC land as it's nearly all open access.What I object to is the fact that all you can do is walk through or have a picnic.I want to be able to stay for a few nights much the same as the moot.Just ring your local FC and ask if you can stay overnight and have a fire for cooking.Then you'll see how much you can do there.If it was privately owned the parts that are no use to developers would probably be availabel to us to use for a price,if they aren't then what have we lost,Just a few nice places to walk.

 

[Toddy]

So you'd sell off all the stability of ecosystems that have developed, all of the access, all of the research, the conservation, just so that you can hire the right to use a 'not so commercially viable' bit to have a wee fire ???
Just go to a campsite if that's all you want, and leave the woodlands to thrive and be freely open to all.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[British Red]

Must depend on where you are, around here and indeed most places up this way, as long as you act responsible then access isn't a problem at all. That aside, I can't help but thinking that by selling off part of the FC that actually makes the government money being a bit daft, a short term gain ( hmmm didn't the Tories do this last time too? ) for long term loss. I don't see the problem of a government ministry making money instead of spending it all, instead of making a few quid on a sell off, and no doubt tax concessions etc for a few years too. Handing over the keys to private companies of this countries forests just doesn't sit right. I might be wrong, perhaps private companies will continue to keep the free access to country walks ect, perhaps they will continue to carry out research in various areas from entomology to climate change. However private companies what to make profits for themselves not the government, so I'm highly cynical here, and can't help but think it's further Tory "Jobs for the Boys" again.

If we are going to get political, perhaps we should look at the debts racked up by the last administration that have to be paid back causing the sell off of assets and reductions in services we must all now endure.

Or shall we steer away from politics?

 

[ganstey]

Access isn't a problem anywhere on FC land as it's nearly all open access.What I object to is the fact that all you can do is walk through or have a picnic.I want to be able to stay for a few nights much the same as the moot.Just ring your local FC and ask if you can stay overnight and have a fire for cooking.Then you'll see how much you can do there.If it was privately owned the parts that are no use to developers would probably be availabel to us to use for a price,if they aren't then what have we lost,Just a few nice places to walk.

So by your thinking, I should also be allowed to (hypothetically) charge about in my 4x4 so long as I pay, regardless of what damage I may do. Remember that the FC don't know you from Adam.

The parts that were no use to developers would probably be very close to those developments. So you'd end up paying to camp in a bit of trashed woodland next to a development. Is that really what you want?

At the moment we all have the same access because we all pay through our taxes. If it were sold off, then private companies would (I'm guessing) charge a significant amount for people to wildcamp, so it would only be available to the more well-off. And the owners would probably impose their own conditions and restrictions.

 

[robin wood]

if they aren't then what have we lost,Just a few nice places to walk.

A lot of folk would say that bushcraft is a small consumer group and that there are huge benefits to vast numbers of folk of having a few nice places to walk. Having said that I would expect all existing rights to be protected. The FC was set up to create a strategic timber resource, I have heard it said we came closer to loosing WWII through lack of timber than many other things. Today we have that timber resource but now we realise that many of the woodlands that were planted have a higher value for public amenity than as timber resource. Governments change, management priorities change, woodland management is a long term business and it is hard to guess what our priorities will be in 50 years. Public amenity? zero carbon fuel source? timber? biodiversity? what will the country want from it's woodlands in 2060? the world will be a very different place and our woodland management policies of today have to guess what will be needed then. Not easy.

 

[Toddy]

Wonder how much persuasion the Scottish Government will need to acquire ownership of the Scottish Forestry Commission lands

cheers,
Toddy

...........last post in this thread, Tony asks that we avoid political discussion.

 

[ganstey]

Also remember that Forest Research is part of the FC. As well as their laboratory work, they need large areas where they can carry out monitoring and assessment. If part of the public estate was sold off, they'd be very restricted in what field research and trials they could carry out. We would therefore be degrading a vast (world renowned) knowledge on arboriculture and silviculture.

 

[Nagual]

Wonder how much persuasion the Scottish Government will need to acquire ownership of the Scottish Forestry Commission lands

cheers,
Toddy

...........last post in this thread, Tony asks that we avoid political discussion.

Maybe we should email them and ask?

Political arguments aside, I wonder just how much money can actually be raised and saved by this. The saving of cash course would come from wages and over heads, although many people would be moved around and much of the redundancy should ideally come from natural wastage. I'll ask when I next see the harvesting boss next week, how much they normally take per acre - no FC harvesting here for a while though, it gets tendered out as standing timber. Although I recall them saying that recently they tend to make more money from selling the tops of trees at Christmas time, than they make from the timber itself.