Ministers plan huge sell-off of Britain's forests

[treadlightly]

Surely if shooting rights are more lucrative, and mean that the woods are undisturbed for nine out of twelve months and so completely protected during the animal and bird breeding seasons, then we, as people who want to encourage more wildlife, should agree that this is a better use of woodland?

If not, are we really saying that what we want is that taxpayers should fund out hobby, to the detriment of the ecosystems and wildlife?

Why on earth should we have taxpayer funded camping?

Red

Don't think I argued for taxpayer funded camping, just that the woodland that is already in public ownership should remain so.

 

[jamalex]

I find it difficult to see this as anything other than a land-grab. Profitable forest will be sold off and probably asset-stripped. Our long-term biodiversity and economic resources will be sold to a few profit-takers who will make a few gestures towards consultation and local community involvement, while ripping out what return on investment they can. Anyone who has read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine will recognise the methodology: manufacture a crisis, bamboozle the public, overwhelm them with change, close down the space for debate, and sell off everything and anything to a corporate cabal.

The previous administration got a lot wrong, but we have an enormous deficit because we HAD to keep the banking sector afloat. We missed the opportunity to properly regulate the sector, and are now being swept up in a manufactured crisis that serves the interests of the corporate sector at the expense of the population in general, and the most vulnerable in particular.

That is exactly what I thought.

This woodland needs protecting for sustainable future use, whether we get to camp in it or not.

Alex

 

[topknot]

Why not cut to the chase and put a big for SALE sign in the middle of England and sale this land off . Its what they want.

Topknot

 

[RAPPLEBY2000]

I'm guessing they'll find a way of building houses on it too

 

[_mark_]

@Featherstick, well said!

 

[martingent]

 

[MSkiba]

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.

I dont think we (public) should be allowed to go and camp in any forrest without prior permission, no matter who owns it.

Most of us here would not be a problem, but its when you get tom dick and harry with their stella cans and rubbish that would spoil it.

Think of the long term damage to the nice forests if everyone was allowed in and to make camp fires because they paid a £15 entrance fee.

 

[Ronnie]

I find it difficult to see this as anything other than a land-grab. Profitable forest will be sold off and probably asset-stripped. Our long-term biodiversity and economic resources will be sold to a few profit-takers who will make a few gestures towards consultation and local community involvement, while ripping out what return on investment they can. Anyone who has read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine will recognise the methodology: manufacture a crisis, bamboozle the public, overwhelm them with change, close down the space for debate, and sell off everything and anything to a corporate cabal.

The previous administration got a lot wrong, but we have an enormous deficit because we HAD to keep the banking sector afloat. We missed the opportunity to properly regulate the sector, and are now being swept up in a manufactured crisis that serves the interests of the corporate sector at the expense of the population in general, and the most vulnerable in particular.

This is by far the most prescient comment on this issue yet.

Both the Tory party and Labour have a solid track record of giving away public assets for next to nothing to party donors and other vague corporate friends during privatisation. Sweetners such as relaxation of planning and environmental protection restrictions will surely be added into the mix under the guise of cutting red tape to aid the recovery (sic).

Please do not be under any illusion as to what corporate ownership of the forests will mean. Getting all wound up about ability to do bushcraft or not is literally not being able to see the woods for the trees, and pales in comparison with the degree of environmental damage which will ensue.

Apologies if I'm interpreted as political, I'm not sure whether believing that people, communities and the environment are more important than corporate profit is classed as being political by the standards of BushcraftUK. I hope not.

 

[johnboy]

Should we be campaigning to remove financial incentives to add to overpopulation? Of course we should. Actually we should be campaigning for tax charges for each child above one. Right behind you on that one

 

[martingent]

"Sweetners such as relaxation of planning and environmental protection restrictions will surely be added into the mix".

I agree. For this not to be seriously bad news requires the government to legislate against any restrictions to public access and to ensure the forest is treated as "a national resource which should be managed so that it provides a good return on a sustainable basis and ensures the preservation of biodiversity."[as it is in Sweden].

This is highly unlikely to happen imo. As with any privatisation anouncement, the political emphasis will be on making sure the sell-off is achieved. Anything that is likely to make the deal look less attractive [such as any protective legislation] is therefore likely to be rejected.

This government press release was of the 'prepare the ground' 'test the waters' type. More details to follow 'in the autumn'...'when the electorate will have forgotten about it'.

Personally, I think that government needs to be told now, 'in the autumn' and whenever else about how important our already limited amount of forest is to us.


For those interested petitions are here:
http://www.petition.co.uk/stop-uk-forestry-destruction

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forests#petition

Your local MP can be reached here:
http://www.writetothem.com/


Sorry if this post was a bit full-on and hopefully it didn't contravene any site rules.
[:yikes:Ranting mode turned off]

 

[locum76]

It doesn't matter who owns the forests, they still won't keep me out.

 

[sapper1]

It doesn't matter who owns the forests, they still won't keep me out.

 

[hog]

And then Britain got even smaller....

 

[locum76]

Surely if shooting rights are more lucrative, and mean that the woods are undisturbed for nine out of twelve months and so completely protected during the animal and bird breeding seasons, then we, as people who want to encourage more wildlife, should agree that this is a better use of woodland?

If not, are we really saying that what we want is that taxpayers should fund out hobby, to the detriment of the ecosystems and wildlife?

Why on earth should we have taxpayer funded camping?

Red

An organisation with a triple bottom line of making money, amenity for all and natural beauty makes most sense to me.

The model of selling time in a reserve to super rich hunters may work well in some instances in Africa but would just be another way of squeezing the poor on our wee island.

 

[British Red]

Aaah - well I was putting the wildlife and nature first you see. Still, your view is fine, if that is not what we are after.

 

[locum76]

People are part of nature BR and as such deserve to be able to see all of it.

 

[pennywood]

It depends on where are type forest will go in Scotland large areas needed to be looked at something done with,

FC in Scotland have got set criteria on how they will select forest to be sold, it is worth reading as most ccomments seem based on media reports not detail,


Our criteria for selecting national forest land for sale

Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) manages the national forest estate as part of its work to deliver public benefits on behalf of Scottish ministers.

Part of this involves making the land-holding as useful as possible by selling relatively small areas of land (the surplus property list) or by selling larger bits of land to create a fund to enable us to buy other land in return (revolving land sales).

The two mechanisms have slightly different criteria for selection but for both we only sell the land if selling it will improve our ability to deliver public benefit.

Criteria for selecting properties for inclusion in the surplus property list:

1. Parcels should be relatively small - up to 100 hectares for open land and up to 50 hectares for forested areas.

2. They should be so located that their management is unduly awkward and/or expensive in relation to the contribution that the property makes to FCS objectives.

3. The property should normally not contain any significant:

* recreation facilities or significant public use;
* community interest and/or involvement in the management; or
* natural or cultural assets that would be put at risk by sale.

4. The criteria set out in paragraph 3 may be overridden in circumstances:

* where the considerations under paragraph 2 are overwhelming in relation to the benefits of retaining the property; or
* where sale will be to a community group or another public sector or Non-governmental Organisation purchaser where continued appropriate management can be expected.

Criteria for selecting properties for sale to create a revolving fund:

1. There will be no size limit.

2. The property will be delivering a low level of public benefits:

* relatively low public access and use;
* relatively remote from significant communities and with limited community involvement;
* no significant natural and cultural assets that would be put at risk by sale; and
* no prominent landscape features that would be put at risk by sale.

3. Priority should be given to properties where sale price is likely to be favourable in comparison with future costs, i.e.: properties which will be expensive to manage and/or will need significant investment such as roading.

4. Priority will be given to properties that meet the criteria and could also be sold for a higher price because they are attractive to an adjacent landowner.

 

[EdS]

Should we be campaigning to remove financial incentives to add to overpopulation? Of course we should. Actually we should be campaigning for tax charges for each child above one. Right behind you on that one

And a licence required to breed as well. ;-)

 

[tk421]

does this mean groups of Bushcrafters can but a bit of woodland from sites like this http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/index.asp just put in the city change the type of land to woodland and look through the results i have seen in some areas 1/2 acres for £5000

 

[peasantchurl]

I suggest you start gathering as much information possible on the people who keep you out the forest, it will come in very useful in the near future.