Woodland Threatened (again!)

[yagamuffin]

Received the below in my Inbox today from 38 Degrees

Link to their petition is https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/keep-our-woods-safe#petition



Not again! There are worrying rumours of a behind-the-scenes effort to revive plans to sell off England’s woodlands. We may have less than a week to stop them and keep our forests safe for future generations.

Next week, the government's forest panel will publish a new report on the future of our woodlands. [1] Rumours are circulating that some panel members want to clear the way for a fresh sell-off. We’ve got a few days to persuade the rest of them to block this new threat to our beautiful woodlands.

Please add your name to the urgent petition now, and then forward this email to your family and friends. We’ll do an emergency delivery to each of the panel members before next Wednesday:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/keep-our-woods-safe

It's a bit depressing that anyone still thinks selling off England's woodlands is a good idea! But it's not all that surprising - the government forest panel includes vested interests from the private timber industry. [2] A huge people powered petition could help sway undecided panel members and make sure these vested interests don't win out.

Our woodlands are at their best at this time of year. Animals and plants are flourishing. A new generation of children is learning to ride bikes and climb trees. For those of us that live in cities and towns, woodlands give us a chance to slow down and enjoy nature. And for tens of thousands of people, jobs in forests pay their wages. [3] That's why last year, half a million of us stood together to stop them being sold off. [4]

The next few days are crucial to protect these beautiful wild places - please sign the emergency petition now:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/keep-our-woods-safe


Thanks for being involved,

Hannah, Marie, Cian, David, Becky, James, David T, Belinda and the 38 Degrees team


PS: The government has already stated publicly that up to 40,000 hectares of woodland could be put up for sale again within weeks of this report being published. We can't let this start again! Please sign the petition now: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/keep-our-woods-safe


NOTES
[1] DEFRA: Independent Panel on Forestry http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/forestry/
[2] DEFRA: Independent Panel on Forestry Panel members’ biographies http://www.defra.gov.uk/forestrypanel/about/members/
[3] Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology postnote: UK Trees and Forests http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn275.pdf
[4] The Independent: Forest farce: Cameron to axe sell-off policy http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 17131.html

 

[tintin40]

This doesn't surprise me

 

[suburbanreuben]

Aren't the woods they are selling commercial plantations of non native coniferous trees?
I can't see anything particularly beautiful about them...

 

[highlandsflyer]

Aren't the woods they are selling commercial plantations of non native coniferous trees?
I can't see anything particularly beautiful about them...

Some of the best riding is such. Once private concerns have their grip on them the policy of providing as much public access as possible will be compromised at best.

 

[suburbanreuben]

Aren't the woods they are selling commercial plantations of non native coniferous trees?
I can't see anything particularly beautiful about them...

Some of the best riding is such. Once private concerns have their grip on them the policy of providing as much public access as possible will be compromised at best.

Nonsense. The highly popular "Surrey Hills" mountain bike mecca south of London is on several thousand acres of 95% privately owned land, and the riding is free. Sneaky trails abound.
Most woodland here in the most heavily wooded (and most densely populated) part of the country is privately owned. The only access problems I have EVER encountered are on MOD, publicly owned, land.

 

[1duck]

Aren't the woods they are selling commercial plantations of non native coniferous trees?
I can't see anything particularly beautiful about them...

Some of the best riding is such. Once private concerns have their grip on them the policy of providing as much public access as possible will be compromised at best.

Nonsense. The highly popular "Surrey Hills" mountain bike mecca south of London is on several thousand acres of 95% privately owned land, and the riding is free. Sneaky trails abound.
Most woodland here in the most heavily wooded (and most densely populated) part of the country is privately owned. The only access problems I have EVER encountered are on MOD, publicly owned, land.

Most privately owned forestry don't care if you ride/use their land, so long as you don't turn up with a chainsaw and start stealing trees

 

[highlandsflyer]

Aren't the woods they are selling commercial plantations of non native coniferous trees?
I can't see anything particularly beautiful about them...

Some of the best riding is such. Once private concerns have their grip on them the policy of providing as much public access as possible will be compromised at best.

Nonsense. The highly popular "Surrey Hills" mountain bike mecca south of London is on several thousand acres of 95% privately owned land, and the riding is free. Sneaky trails abound.
Most woodland here in the most heavily wooded (and most densely populated) part of the country is privately owned. The only access problems I have EVER encountered are on MOD, publicly owned, land.

It is hardly nonsense.

Merely a different experience leading to a different opinion.

Hardly nonsense.

 

[suburbanreuben]

Aren't the woods they are selling commercial plantations of non native coniferous trees?
I can't see anything particularly beautiful about them...

Some of the best riding is such. Once private concerns have their grip on them the policy of providing as much public access as possible will be compromised at best.

Nonsense. The highly popular "Surrey Hills" mountain bike mecca south of London is on several thousand acres of 95% privately owned land, and the riding is free. Sneaky trails abound.
Most woodland here in the most heavily wooded (and most densely populated) part of the country is privately owned. The only access problems I have EVER encountered are on MOD, publicly owned, land.

It is hardly nonsense.

Merely a different experience leading to a different opinion.

Hardly nonsense.

But it is your assertion that "access would be compromised at best".
Don't assume your opinions or experiences are those of everybody. They clearly aren't.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Going from a policy of access to the whim of private owners would certainly mean compromise in a large number of cases, and the reduction of access in many. While I am sure there may be improvements I feel they would be heavily outweighed.

I assume nothing about others' opinions or whether they might agree with mine, and certainly would not write off someone's opinion as nonsense without at least discussing it.

You can equally assume your opinion is not everybody's. I feel mine is less far from most, judging on those I have encountered since this issue arose.

Why the hell should the government be allowed to sell of large swathes of publicly owned amenity property?

Public rights of access were hard won through many years of campaigning, why sit on our hands when there is a challenge to the principal?

 

[suburbanreuben]

Going from a policy of access to the whim of private owners would certainly mean compromise in a large number of cases, and the reduction of access in many. While I am sure there may be improvements I feel they would be heavily outweighed.

I assume nothing about others' opinions or whether they might agree with mine, and certainly would not write off someone's opinion as nonsense without at least discussing it.

You can equally assume your opinion is not everybody's. I feel mine is less far from most, judging on those I have encountered since this issue arose.

Why the hell should the government be allowed to sell of large swathes of publicly owned amenity property?

Public rights of access were hard won through many years of campaigning, why sit on our hands when there is a challenge to the principal?

I'm happy to discuss it. I respect your right to your opinion, but your experience clearly differs from mine. Private ownership does not necessarily result in reduced access rights. It may even improve them in some areas since there are financial advantages (tax breaks, grants) to allowing access. I'm sure this hasn't escaped the greedy potential landowners' attention.
Forestry is a highly emotive subject, and it is easy to foster public indignation at the loss of "our" woodland. It is easy to ignore the possibility that private land owners might actually be better stewards of the countryside than the Forestry Commission, whose priority is, by necessity, the bottom line.