FORESTRY COMMISSION SELL OFF

[Mick F]

We have a wood. 2 acres of it. It provides us with firewood and central heating.

We've lived at this place for 14 years, and no matter how hard I try, I can't cut enough of the damned trees down. They keep growing as fast as I cut them. Trouble is, the longer I let them grow, the bigger they get!

TBH, our woodland, along with all the woodland in the valley, has only been growing the past 60 or 70 years. Before that, it was flower fields and soft fruit bushes. The place and the industry have changed, and all the trees have grown over the whole valley, some of them planted, and some of the seeded.

Cut them all down as far as I'm concerned! They block out the light and they spoil the views!

This in not any statement to get rid of the the forestry in the UK, some of it is ancient woodland and needs to be preserved for eternity, but some of it is 'new' and can be harvested and re-used. The land can be re-used too.

Keep the good stuff for the good of the country, but the plantations and scrub that is turning into New Woodland can go.

[gilesjuk]

The title of the thread is wrong. It's a lease off not sell off.

The land will not be sold, it will be leased (150 year lease). The good thing with a lease is you can put conditions in the lease which if broken terminate the lease.

The ancient woodlands (aren't they all ancient? unless man made) will be given to the National Trust and Woodlands Trust.

I still however think the idea is stupid, the savings are just the bonus money for ten bankers, loose change compared to other savings.

[Si]

The ancient woodlands (aren't they all ancient? unless man made)

Technically they are all man made, or at least so intensively managed as to be unrecognisable as "natural" woods. "Ancient" these days just refers to being a few hundred years old (I forget the exact date). I think that the nearest that we have to real ancient/natural woodland in this country is Wychwood (sp?).

[thirdcrank]

My own impression is that Forestry Commission land tends to mean mile after mile of featureless plantations of fast-growing evergreens. Over the years, forestry has also received favourable tax treatment so I fancy there are also vast areas of similar stuff owned by people for tax reasons. It' makes boring landcapes and the ownership seems only marginally more interesting. As for public access, I get the impression that the FC has tried to promote its own image by providing a few picnic areas and woodland trails and no doubt in some places like Coed y Brenin squeezes out a few extra bob from leisure activities.

If it's all privatised and there's money in allowing public access, then there will be a lot more than there is now, along the same lines as the changes at some reservoirs. There will also be pressure for development in the same way. No doubt forestry will provide another trojan horse for the development of rural land, much as golf courses do now. So, situation normal.

I cannot imagine any zillionaire buying up vast areas of this currently ugly and sterile environment solely for the purpose of excluding the public from their private playground, as might be the case if, for example, somebody devised a way of privatising the foreshore.

[Malaconotus]

My own impression is that Forestry Commission land tends to mean mile after mile of featureless plantations of fast-growing evergreens.

That's a false impression based on past history. It is absolutely not the case today. Tax-dodge monoculture does create biodiversity deserts. The Foresty Commission's silviculture is globally recognised for its high environmental standards and its commercial logging sites are managed with great sympathy to wildlife. FC sites are hugely popular among birdwatchers as they have been managed to support a number of species which do not occur elsewhere. My nearest FC-managed conifer plantation supports nightjars, crossbills, redpolls, long-eared and short-eared owls, redstarts, woodcocks, goshawks and several other rare species, and is also managed for dragonflies and butterflies. Of a summer evening there can be up to thirty naturalists visiting. One site in Norfolk is the site nationally to go to to see woodlark, and one in Wales is hugely important for the endangered black grouse. Birdwatchers travel from all over England and Wales just to see these species.

Dense plantations are broken up with pools and ponds and stands of birch and alder, and clear felled areas are not denuded but have individual dead trees left to stand, allowing the woods to be colonised by species which otherwise would be absent. Stripped of these features, as purely commercial forest would be after sell-off, the conifers cannot support the same diversity or numbers.

It's arguable that the FC are actually better at this than the RSPB, Natural England and other NGOs; the SSSIs they manage are rated as being in better condition on average. Handing these sites over to commercial interests whose sole aim is profit would be a disaster for biodiversity. Sold-off woodlands would revert to pure profit-driven monoculture with planting and harvesting methods unconstrained by any consideration to wildlife, like the tax-dodge forests are today. Birds of prey, in particular, would be liable to increased persecution from shooting interests, which is already a huge problem in upland areas. (owners of grouse moors are closely connected with owners of forestry planted as a tax dodge) FC forests provide a haven from persecution for golden eagles, honey buzzards, and goshawks.

With all respect, TC, it takes a trained or expert eye to appreciate the difference between one conifer plantation and the next. I am sure that those behind the proposals do not know the difference either.

As for public access, I get the impression that the FC has tried to promote its own image by providing a few picnic areas and woodland trails and no doubt in some places like Coed y Brenin squeezes out a few extra bob from leisure activities.

I've never paid a penny to use any FC facilities for any purpose. Even parking has been free. They do these things not to raise a few bob but because they are a publicly owned and publicly accountable body. (I guess this is another reason they are popular with birdwatchers who notoriously are able to peel oranges in their pockets) Compare to the cost of using nature reserves owned by RSPB, WWT, National Trust etc., or outdoor leisure facilities provided by the private sector.

Yes, the FC facilities are good for their PR but it is not done for reputation but because they aim to serve the public who own them. Have a look at their where-to-go/what-to-do site... http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/fcho ... f/hp/GBEEE What will happen to that after sell-off?

Graham

[thirdcrank]

... That's a false impression based on past history. .... [/quote]

I'm happy to be corrected. (And you are right that I could not tell the difference between mile after mile of one sort of evergreen and another and I don't suppose that over the years I've paid too much attention to whether one stretch or another belonged to the Forestry Commission or Attila the Hun.)

[gilesjuk]

I saw something on TV recently where they were chopping a good 10 or so trees down so as to help a type of butterfly.

Seems totally crazy that human intervention is a good thing for nature. Surely leave all the trees alone and let nature take its course?

Talk about the "butterfly effect". Chaos theory proven true.

[meic]

As I said, I live on the edge of Brechfa Forest which is amongst the largest forests in the UK. I must say that TC's description is spot on, mile after mile of lifeless conifer forest, they only variety is provided by the steepness of the hills.

Malaconotus is right when he says "With all respect, TC, it takes a trained or expert eye to appreciate the difference between one conifer plantation and the next. I am sure that those behind the proposals do not know the difference either."

Yet anybody with eyes can tell the difference between our commercial conifer forests here and a decent bit of native woodland. Or with ears, in the commercial forest you occasionally hear a bird sing, in the native woodland you hear a chorus.

I do agree with Malaconotus that (here at least) the FC go out of their way to encourage the public to use their forests and never charge despite spending a lot of money on facilities.
I think they saw the possibility of privatisation coming and decided that if they were providing a public amenity it would justify their continued existence and funding.
Our area has its own recreation officer (or was he just for cycling, I cant remember) I went to the meeting before they built our third MTB course in the forest, they did all the work of creating the course and providing shelters along the route, signing, advertising and car parks with picnic sites at the entry points. He did suggest a couple of quid parking fee and free use of the courses (no problem to me, I cycle there) but in the end it was all free.
The FC are totally welcoming to all non motorised users and dont even mind lots of cyclists riding all through the night with their searchlights lighting up the night sky.

I guess if it went to private owner ship the car parks would (reasonably) start to charge, the present users would be forced to pay in some way and worst of all the motorists would be allowed into the forest much more often as they pay GOOD money when allowed in.

Fortunately all this is in Wales so (for now) it will remain as it is.

[thirdcrank]

....I think they saw the possibility of privatisation coming and decided that if they were providing a public amenity it would justify their continued existence and funding. ...

Interesting you should say that because it's just my impression of why the British Waterways set up suddenly became all cuddly. Otoh, forestry is not something that can be changed much overnight or even over a decade, except by chopping a lot of trees down. I got the impression from Malaconotus that this was something that had been happening for a long time.

[meic]

It is not just the forest that is sparsely populated around here.
If you are trying to attract visitors best to start where there are more people I guess.

The first MTB course has been here for at least 6 years.
I have been walking in the forests for over 13 years and never was taken notice of, they dont even object if you take wood out with you, if it is small enough to carry.

[Malaconotus]

The debate is now live on BBC Parliament. Tory MP for New Forest just spoke against the "party of nasty surprises", followed by an excellent speech now from Peter Soulsby, Shadow Environment Secretary. Really clued up on the FC and the issues.

Also in the news today that the Government's own figures say that selling off the forests will cost more than it saves... http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...s-2201501.html

Graham

[Nutsey]

Chuckled at this in the Telegraph:

[Malaconotus]

Opposition Day Motion was defeated 310 to 260. The sell-off plans proceed to the consultation process as proposed.

[iainkitt]

What is the CTC's policy on this issue? There is a report in the Guardian this morning claiming that several organisations (e.g. RSPB, National Trust, Woodlands Trust) are not campaigning against the proposed sell-off because they hope to benefit from it. The CTC is presumably not in this position but I haven't seen any statements from them saying they oppose it. Let's see a clear statement that Forestry Commission owned forests should stay in public ownership.

[pga]

The CTC was not mentioned in the Guardian article but its failure to come out against YHA closures has not been forgotten in this part of the world.