Woodland group buy

[Sainty]

If 50 people invested £1,000 each that would be much more manageable. £1,000 would barely buy you two weeks European holiday so, for a life-time's enjoyment that's a pittance.

The one lesson I've learned in life is that there will always be those who say 'No you can't' and those who say 'Yes I can'. I try to be one of the latter.

Good luck to you, I hope you realise your dream.

Martin

 

[Glen]

Yeah, but it wouldn't take long for what dead wood there is to be used up with fires and spoons, as said with any number of people doing it. People would either move on to cutting living wood or just sit doing nothing, which you can do in public woodlands. Respecting the woodland is easy when there are only one or two people without another Bushcrafter or camper for miles around, but a common bushcrafting haunt for that many people would invariably be detrimental. That's why the nomadic lifestyle was so effective for so long, because it is much easier to move around to avoid using up all the local resources (and allow the local ecosystem to recover from your stay) than it is to maintain a single piece of land for frequent or constant use. Particularly such a small piece.

Pete

I seem to recal reading somewhere, wouldn't surprise me if it was BCUK, that an acre was chose to be defined as the size that was enough to support 1 man and his family sustainably for wood ( obviously the definition was done pre equality and that would apply for woman and her family now ) So in theory a 5 acre site should keep quite a few 'crafters happy, nowhere near 5,000 though. Though it needs to be kept in mind that most of those sites have preservation orders on the trees.

Any areas that have such things hunting rights would need to be thought through VERY carefully, another reason why smaller localised groups in a looser afiliation of a larger group would get my vote, much easier to get consensus amonst 50 people than 500 to have say a much smaller group have day here and there where it could be arranged and people not in that smaller group stayed away for safety reasons.

They're are all sorts of issues that would be easier to take care of by the smaller localised owner group model, from selection of the area to people dumping stuff and local councils, but a few that might be easier by a larger nationwide affiliation.

 

[gunslinger]

Great idea but for two issues.

Having bought a couple of things in the past as a group of several people,from my personal experience it doesnt work,and is a quick way to destroy friendships.

Secondly,if I was in a position to buy a piece of woodland the last place I would look is with the people linked.
They are IMO vastly overpriced,there are much better deals through normal agents and private sellers.

GS

 

[Glen]

Great idea but for two issues.

Having bought a couple of things in the past as a group of several people,from my personal experience it doesnt work,and is a quick way to destroy friendships.

Secondly,if I was in a position to buy a piece of woodland the last place I would look is with the people linked.
They are IMO vastly overpriced,there are much better deals through normal agents and private sellers.

On a positive note I see your 2nd point as a good thing, meaning it's possible to get more value for money.

The first point is a very valid one and anyone who did want to get involve would need to think about it carefully. Though I would add it can create good freinds you didn't have before, it's still something that people should be aware of.

As is my previous experience, in housing co-ops and talking to others in other co-ops ( I'm not suggesting this should be one by the way merely using them as an example where there are a group of people with similar aims and supposed comitments.) After the inital period of commitment, longer term it's generally 10% of the people involve who end up doing all of the work.

 

[locum76]

4 acres is a ludicrously small plot of woodland for any number of people to use with any regularity... 100 people would probably have it stripped bare before long, never mind 5000!

Sorry to be a wet blanket, honest! I just don't think the UK has enough big woods for sale for this sort of thing, if a significant number of people were involved. I think it would be detrimental.

True, but maybe if 5000 people put in a grand there'd £5,000,000.

In Scotland, high end agricultural/ forestry land could conceivably go for about £20,000 per acre.

That would mean that 250 acres could be bought.

It'd be a nice playground, there'd be a lot of admin.

Just a thought.

 

[Stew]

Ok, rather than talking about how you could do it, why not actually do it and prove the doubters (that includes me) wrong.

Talk is just talk.

 

[Wink]

The main problem with the sites linked to is that they are too small, and so very expensive per acre. They are within the reach of individuals to buy for "amenity" use, that's why they are for sale in this way. It's an easy way for landowners to raise a bit of cash from land which is otherwise useless to them. A deciduous woodland of a few hundred acres would be a lot cheaper per acre, say £1-2,000 per acre. Unfortunately, such areas of land are rarely sold unless as part of a larger estate which could include farmhouses, cottages, sporting income and farmland. Landowners are normally reluctant to split such estates, as they are very difficult to assemble in the first place!

A more realistic "group buy" approach would be to buy the rights to a wood (or a series of different woods scattered around the country), not the wood itself. A landowner will probably make less than £100 profit per acre per year from farming, and nothing at all on woodland. So if a 50 acre wood could be leased for £50 per acre per year, this would give the landowner £2,500 p.a. income. If 25 people all paid £10 per month by standing order, it would more than cover the rent, and 25 people would be sustainable in that size wood. If 100 people paid in, you would soon accumulate a big enough income stream to lease a second wood in a different location. As more people joined the scheme, a greater choice of different venues would become available, for the same £10 per month payment. You could conceivably end up with a network of venues around the country available to members, in return for their annual subscription. Anyone who wanted to leave the scheme could do so, but would no longer have the right to use the woods.

There are lots of opportunities for abuse by those not prepared to pay, but nothing's perfect! It could be set up so that those unwilling to commit to the subscription could pay as they go, say £10 per day. There would have to be a company to take the leases, of which the members could be shareholders, appointing a board to run things, and voting on new purchases at the AGM...

In one of my lives I'm a property consultant by the way!

 

[Allie]

The main problem with the sites linked to is that they are too small, and so very expensive per acre. They are within the reach of individuals to buy for "amenity" use, that's why they are for sale in this way. It's an easy way for landowners to raise a bit of cash from land which is otherwise useless to them. A deciduous woodland of a few hundred acres would be a lot cheaper per acre, say £1-2,000 per acre. Unfortunately, such areas of land are rarely sold unless as part of a larger estate which could include farmhouses, cottages, sporting income and farmland. Landowners are normally reluctant to split such estates, as they are very difficult to assemble in the first place!

A more realistic "group buy" approach would be to buy the rights to a wood (or a series of different woods scattered around the country), not the wood itself. A landowner will probably make less than £100 profit per acre per year from farming, and nothing at all on woodland. So if a 50 acre wood could be leased for £50 per acre per year, this would give the landowner £2,500 p.a. income. If 25 people all paid £10 per month by standing order, it would more than cover the rent, and 25 people would be sustainable in that size wood. If 100 people paid in, you would soon accumulate a big enough income stream to lease a second wood in a different location. As more people joined the scheme, a greater choice of different venues would become available, for the same £10 per month payment. You could conceivably end up with a network of venues around the country available to members, in return for their annual subscription. Anyone who wanted to leave the scheme could do so, but would no longer have the right to use the woods.

There are lots of opportunities for abuse by those not prepared to pay, but nothing's perfect! It could be set up so that those unwilling to commit to the subscription could pay as they go, say £10 per day. There would have to be a company to take the leases, of which the members could be shareholders, appointing a board to run things, and voting on new purchases at the AGM...

In one of my lives I'm a property consultant by the way!

So sort of like the woodsforall site, only specifically tailored to bushcrafters rather than giving virtually no rights in the woodland It works for them - why not us!

 

[Native Nathan]

When I initially read the first post I thought WOW!!! count me in, then the logic took over the more I read..

Then wink added His her two pence worth and again WOW!!! sprang to mind, talk about a sensible idea that has a real chance of working, if this strataegy were tto be implimented count me in £10 a month is definitly worth being able to practice my hobby and not be disturbed by local yobs/tourists etc...

Great Idea wink.

 

[Wilderbeast]

I'm in for whatever goes down !