+The_Street_Searchers Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Link to the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12262797 Not good news IMHO Quote Link to comment
+Sabartimesine Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Link to the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12262797 Not good news IMHO I agree. Public right of way will undoubtedly deteriorate despite promises that nothing will change. The public, i.e. us, own these forests. All to plug a hole created by a few and that we are already having to pay back anyway. Maybe spending some money to maximise profits attainable from woodlands would be a lot wiser. After all, private investors would not bother if there was no money to be made. Very sad news if this was to go ahead. Quote Link to comment
+martlakes Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 See also savelakelandsforests.org.uk You can sign their petition if you wish. Just when the NW FC were starting to relax about geocaching. Quote Link to comment
+The_Street_Searchers Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 Thanks for the link - Signed up Quote Link to comment
+Guanajuato Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 At the risk of being considered some kind of heretic, will the sell-off really make that much difference? On the news last night, they were talking about 'Selling Off Sherwood Forest' - Utter balls. most of it, that's not under the concrete of Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield & Rotherham is already in private hands. The forestry commission, as we know, are not exactly public-access friendly. £50 to place a cache anyone? The Forestry commission are no better than private landowners in terms of access. They're better than they used to be though - there used to be an awful lot of the country closed of to the public because of the unnatural forests. As long as retention of public access is maintained by law, I don't see a big problem. But that requirement is probably going to mean very few want to buy the forests. Hey, we might even be able to have a cache or two in Grizedale! Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 At the risk of being considered some kind of heretic, will the sell-off really make that much difference? On the news last night, they were talking about 'Selling Off Sherwood Forest' - Utter balls. most of it, that's not under the concrete of Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield & Rotherham is already in private hands. The forestry commission, as we know, are not exactly public-access friendly. £50 to place a cache anyone? The Forestry commission are no better than private landowners in terms of access. They're better than they used to be though - there used to be an awful lot of the country closed of to the public because of the unnatural forests. As long as retention of public access is maintained by law, I don't see a big problem. But that requirement is probably going to mean very few want to buy the forests. Hey, we might even be able to have a cache or two in Grizedale! The North West Forestry Area charged £50 for a 3 year permit to place Geocaches, which they have now dropped. Due to not a single permit being purchased (for which I'd like to thank the NW cachers for not purchasing a single one) What a sell off would do would mean that the current arrangement of Regional Placement Agreements would be broken into individual Forest Agreements. Each one being different. So instead of a Region having one policy, you'd be faced with forests across the road from each other having different agreements. One being possibly Geocaching Friendly the other Geocaching negative. It took over 2 years of negotiations to get the New Forest Agreement, what will happen if that Region is fragmented? It would also scupper any chance of ever obtaining a National Agreement which is possible with the Forestry Commission at the moment. National Agreements have benefited the UK Geocaching Community, just look at the Woodland Trust or National Trust. It's interesting to note that before the National Agreement with the NT, all policy was left at a Regional level. With the National Agreement the Estate Managers are now required to find suitable alternative locations, if the chosen one is not suitable. Note! That means that they can't refuse completely, but have to provide alternative locations. Now imagine if the NT was broken up, how would that affect Geocaching? For the most part the FC have been highly supportive of Geocaching, with a few blips along the way. Sell off those woods to Private owners, and we could be looking at a huge minefield. Deci Quote Link to comment
+Geobuzzbee Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) The last thing we want is to lose or forests,Living in the forest of dean we are running a big campaign called HOOF hands off our forest please sign here HOOF this one should work Edited January 24, 2011 by Geobuzzbee Quote Link to comment
+The gang of four Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I can not believe that the government thinks that turning over public woodland to private investors can be anything other than a monumentous mistake. How long would it be before theres turnstiles at the start of a woodland trail charging £1.50 entrance fee,how many woodland owners will allow us to place and hunt for caches.On the Jeremy Vine show on Radio two today the government spokesman (at least i think he was i may well be wrong) dismissed rambling and enjoying the delights of our ancient woodlands as a middle class activerty.The words he used were "why should everyone subsidise the activties of the middle classes".Now this caused me to shout and swear at the radio, i dont consider myself to be working,middle or upper class my wife and i work hard during the week and love to pursue this hobby of ours at the weekends we especially enjoy wandering around muddy,deserted woods not because its middle class but because its fun!!! Do what you need to do and fight this proposed act before we are all forced to search for urban micros as the only way we can cache. Click on this link to sign The Woodland Trust Petition http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/campaigning/save-ancient-forests/Pages/fc-disposals-act-now.aspx?WT.mc_id=fc Quote Link to comment
+Boggin's Dad Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 The Woodland Trust protesting against selling off woodlands is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. There were two small parcels of woodland that The WT sold off last year, just outside where I live in Somerset, That said I must admit that it would be a shame for all FC land to be sold off as I have had many lovely walks through their forests, perhaps selling off the family brass (having sold the silver, gold, and bronze..) The value of the land would be insignificant in comparison of the deficit Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 This could be bad in some cases, good in others but probably mostly will make no difference. Remember that FC woodland is already "private land" in that it's owned and controlled by the Forestry Commission. If there's a public footpath running through the forest, the change in ownership will make no difference to that. If the forest is Access Land, it won't change just because of the new owners. There's no big advantage to having the FC as owners from a caching point of view, in that you still have to apply to the local office of the FC for permission and it's pot luck whether they're sympathetic or not. Some areas have agreements, some not. On the bigger picture, it depends what safeguards and restrictions are in place. If you own a forest, can you just cut it down if you feel like it and turn it into a housing estate? I suspect not, without going through a lengthy process. And if the forest contains valuable broadleaf woodland, you may never get permission to do anything with it. Quote Link to comment
+Cache U Nutter Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Mixed feelings really, especially as I may be investing in some woodland myself as part of my SIPP pension. The woodland will have to be managed correctly and will have to comply with some extremely stringent regulations about what I can and cannot do. At least I will not be planting miles upoun miles of non indigeonous woodland and changing the entire biosphere as is the case with much of the Forestry Commision woodland. I will also not be erecting massive chargeable car park with fixed daily pricing or ridiculous visitor centres. In many respects fragmenting woodland ownership could be good for the countryside although I accept many of the potential problems others have noted. Further debate is certainly required. Quote Link to comment
+Amberel Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Mixed feelings really, especially as I may be investing in some woodland myself as part of my SIPP pension...The lengths some people will go to to assure themselves of a ready supply of trees to climb . Rgds, Andy Quote Link to comment
+Geobuzzbee Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 All opinions noted but the Royal Forest Of Dean has its own rights very different to other FC land one being the right to free mine.....persons born on or hereafter to be born and abiding within the said Hundred of St Briavels, of the age of twenty one years and upwards, who shall have worked a year and a day in a coal or iron mine within the said Hundred of St Briavels, shall be deemed and taken to be Free Miners." extract from Dean Forest (Mines) Act 1838.For 700 years the Free Miners of the Royal Forest of Dean have mined. It was the skill of their forefathers in tunnelling under castle fortifications that earned them the right, by Royal decree, to mine anywhere in the forest without hindrance.how will they stop the free miners its a law unchanged since 1838..the FC here are very happy to let us place cachesand pretty quick getting back to people with permission, SO HOOF! hands of or forest! Quote Link to comment
+sTeamTraen Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 According to DEFRA, this sell-off potentially concerns 18% of the forests in England, with 69% already in private hands but subject to a number of regulations. So it's an incremental change. Stuff doesn't have to be owned by the government to be regulatifiable. I have no clue or opinion whether 69% in private hands is too little or too much; just saying. Quote Link to comment
+The Patrician Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) The Beeb reports: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12287175 "Ministers say ancient woodlands will be kept out of commercial hands as they launch a consultation on the future of Forestry Commission lands in England. Campaigners claim weakening public ownership of the forests will damage nature and restrict access. But the consultation document says that "heritage forests" such as the New Forest will be managed by charities, with access rights preserved. Commercial forests will be sold or leased to commercial operators." Edited January 27, 2011 by The Patrician Quote Link to comment
+Amberel Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 ... So it's an incremental change. ... I have no clue or opinion whether 69% in private hands is too little or too much; just saying. Problem with incremental changes is that they are often followed by more incremental changes. Short of revolution, that's how most major changes take place - a succession of smaller changes. Again, not making any comment on private ownership of woodlands, just saying that I'm very wary on almost any subject when the argument is put forward that it's only a minor change. Rgds, Andy Quote Link to comment
Neath Worthies Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Another way of looking at it is that "Nationally Owned" forests will be sold off to "private" individuals or companies. They will then manage the forests while by law keeping existing public rights of way. Doesn't that sound a bit like farms today? So suddenly all need for compliance with existing agreements will vanish and any new caches can be placed with exactly the same requirements (or rather lack of them!) as now apply to caches on regular footpaths running across farmland. Sorted Quote Link to comment
+currykev Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) Don't forget to ask the new owners for permission to place your caches. And the caches you have already placed. It may pay to see how you go before getting GAGB involved. Edited January 27, 2011 by currykev Quote Link to comment
+Cache U Nutter Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Mixed feelings really, especially as I may be investing in some woodland myself as part of my SIPP pension...The lengths some people will go to to assure themselves of a ready supply of trees to climb . Rgds, Andy Cheeky !! Quote Link to comment
+Skittler Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Just noticed this - he just happens to be my MP so I get to hear what he's up to. http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2011/01/28/save-our-trees Quote Link to comment
+sTeamTraen Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 ... So it's an incremental change. ... I have no clue or opinion whether 69% in private hands is too little or too much; just saying. Problem with incremental changes is that they are often followed by more incremental changes. Short of revolution, that's how most major changes take place - a succession of smaller changes. Again, not making any comment on private ownership of woodlands, just saying that I'm very wary on almost any subject when the argument is put forward that it's only a minor change. Yes, but in this case, since the private ownership is already at 69%, the revolution already happened. I agree that if it was currently 3% and proposed to go up to 20% it would be a "step change", as the politicians like to say when they want to sound scientific. But in this case it's the thick end of the wedge, it seems. Quote Link to comment
+Von-Horst Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) Another way of looking at it is that "Nationally Owned" forests will be sold off to "private" individuals or companies. They will then manage the forests while by law keeping existing public rights of way. Doesn't that sound a bit like farms today? So suddenly all need for compliance with existing agreements will vanish and any new caches can be placed with exactly the same requirements (or rather lack of them!) as now apply to caches on regular footpaths running across farmland. Sorted "Most" FC properties are covered by the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) so access shouldn't be a problem after they are sold. As for the rest, the Forestry Commission operate a permissive right to roam policy. I cannot see this continuing after those woods are privatised. Also, although the government has promised to "make sure that public access is maintained and biodiversity protected" there has been no detail as to what this means (will car parks suddenly be shut after the sale, for example). So no, not sorted. Edited January 29, 2011 by Von-Horst Quote Link to comment
+drsolly Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 How long would it be before theres turnstiles at the start of a woodland trail charging £1.50 entrance fee,how many woodland owners will allow us to place and hunt for caches. If I were the owner of a woodland charging £1.50 admission (including parking, I'd guess, which would be a pretty reasonable charge), then I would be delighted for caches to be placed on my woodland; it would bring me more visitors, at no cost to me. Is private ownership really such a bad idea? Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 How long would it be before theres turnstiles at the start of a woodland trail charging £1.50 entrance fee,how many woodland owners will allow us to place and hunt for caches. If I were the owner of a woodland charging £1.50 admission (including parking, I'd guess, which would be a pretty reasonable charge), then I would be delighted for caches to be placed on my woodland; it would bring me more visitors, at no cost to me. Is private ownership really such a bad idea? When the FC cottoned onto the fact that mountain bikers from all over the south west were heading to Haldon (just outside Exeter) every weekend, they did just that. The trails that we'd spent years carving out of the hillside were sanitized and made "family friendly", the pull-ins that we'd been parking in for years for free were all banked up, and a brand new pay car park and visitor centre were built to cater for the masses. The FC are a government owned forestry management and logging commercial concern. I wait with baited breath to see just how much change there is if and when the government outsources the forests..... Quote Link to comment
+The Patrician Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) From The Telegraph: "Cyclists and horse riders may be shut out in forest sell-off Cyclists and horse riders fear they will be shut out of huge swathes of woodland under Government plans to dispose of public forests." "However the act did not provide the same rights for equestrians and cyclists. Subsequently the British Horse Society and the Forestry Commission formalised what had previously been an unwritten voluntary agreement that riders could use its land as long as the commission was able to provide access. Cyclists reached a similar agreement, allowing them to ride freely in most forests. Because this agreement was never made into law any new owners could disregard it, meaning horse riders and cyclists would only be able to use public bridleways in forests. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/forestry/8290428/Cyclists-and-horse-riders-may-be-shut-out-in-forest-sell-off.html http://tinyurl.com/5rrx4c5 Edited January 30, 2011 by The Patrician Quote Link to comment
+Cornell Finch Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 For info, they're going to talk about this on Countryfile tonight. Quote Link to comment
+Sabartimesine Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 15 million the forests costs us a year. There is, what, 60 million people in this country? Once the forests are sold off they will never come back into public ownership. Rules and restrictions on the other hand no doubt will change and be amended. Quote Link to comment
+Team Hotpot Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Originally posted in a new thread, but after a friendly pointer by a fellow forum member I have asked for that to be removed and have posted here. Combination of being angered by this proposal and hastiness to post blamed for that! ----- Personally I think that this is not a good thing at all and something that if it goes through, the public will suffer. Think of areas like Grizedale, Kielder, The Forest of Dean and so on being sold to private companies. Although it is stated that there will be safeguards to protect things like access and usage, I find it hard to believe that this will be the case once ownership has changed hands. Let's face it, if a private company is going to pay a few million for some forest land, they will want to make a profit from this. Bear in mind the case of Rigg Wood in Cumbria, which was sold to a private owner. Locals only realised this when the car park was padlocked and access removed. Also bear in mind that Wales and Scotland have dismissed any plans to do this. It is estimated that the sale of the land would shave a tiny proportion off the national debt. Would you like to see a new wave of Center Parcs and golf courses popping up? I wouldn't. I know that many people reading this will make much use of the land in question and like my family and I get a lot of pleasure from taking part in activities within these areas. A Public Consultation has been started and ends on the 5th April 2011. I urge you to take a look and fill out the survey before it's too late. All the relevant links can he found here. The on-line petitions, mentioned elsewhere in the thread are here and also The Woodland Trust here. Hopefully the government will come to it's senses and listen to the people so that we can carry on enjoying activities such as Geocaching in out wonderful countryside. We must act before it's too late as once they are handed over to the private sector they will be gone for good. Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 After emailing my local MP (Gavin Shuker, Labour member for Luton South) I received a letter from him(?) this morning stating that :- The government's plan to sell-off England's forests is an act of environmental vandalism. He goes on to say :- I share your concerns and will be voting strongly against the proposals. One for our side? Quote Link to comment
+Skittler Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Thinking a bit more about it... http://progressblues.blogspot.com/2011/02/seeing-wood-for-trees.html Quote Link to comment
+Team Hotpot Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Thinking a bit more about it... http://progressblues.blogspot.com/2011/02/seeing-wood-for-trees.html An interesting and valid viewpoint. I think the author of the blog is right in stating that the government have slipped up here in terms of communication and has underestimated the feeling of the public. Personally I am not convinced that all public access right etc will be preserved once the forests go into private ownership. This article states that the DEFRA Impact Assessment found that the sale of the forests would actually COST the government money, thus us the taxpayer! Received a response from the Local MP today, Eric Ollerenshaw, stating that he "broadly supports" the proposals. Edited February 3, 2011 by Team Hotpot Quote Link to comment
Izzy and the Lizard King Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 It may be good news! :) BBC News website Quote Link to comment
+Unobtainium Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Very good news, we just need to keep an eye on the panel of 'experts' to ensure they do the right thing about public access. Quote Link to comment
+Team Hotpot Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Very good news, we just need to keep an eye on the panel of 'experts' to ensure they do the right thing about public access. This is good news indeed. However only a partial victory as there are still plans to sell. Shadow environment secretary Mary Creagh said: "We are very pleased that the government is withdrawing the clauses from the Public Bodies Bill that would have allowed it to sell off all of England's forests, but they still intend to proceed with the sale of 15% of the forests - that's 40,000 hectares or 100,000 acres. "We're very concerned about those forestry sites - they're going to start going up for sale in April - and we have a lot of questions about the future of those woodlands. We need to keep an eye on this and hope, as you say, the "do the right thing". Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.