Forest sell off

[Jacob]

I don't know if petitions do anything but we might as well have a go:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save ... s#petition

 

[dickm]

Was going to email our MP about this, but I'm not clear what the situation is in Scotland. Will the sell-off happen here too, or has Scottish Govt got other ideas?
Reason for asking is that our (useless) MP always hides behind the "ah, but this legislation applies to England, so Scottish MPs shouldn't take part". Plonker.

 

[andersonec]

I don't know if petitions do anything but we might as well have a go:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save ... s#petition

Hopefully this one will, it is on the way to 250000 signatures at the moment

 

[studders]

They'll do it regardless, probably a watered down sell off so we can think 'oh well, not as bad as it could have been, at least we saved a few' .

 

[MIGNAL]

Signed it. Now just have to fire off an e-mail to my local MP.

 

[big soft moose]

i'm not convinced that its necessarily a bad thing - woodlands in private hands are often more diverse and better managed. (they are actually planning to sell of 33% of the estate - and out of this two thirds (ie 22% of the whole) will be going to community groups and charities - only 1/3 (11% of the whole) will go to private companies / individuals, and they would still need a felling licence to fell. also whaty do the petioners think the FC does with its plantations - it fells them (wood really does grow on trees)

38 degrees is a leftwing body and thus bound to be in opposition of anything the condems are planning

 

[gnu]

In Wales there are huge areas of FC land with open access for walkers, mountain bikers, moto x riders, pony treckers and so on and if it were all to be fenced off and turned into golf courses, holiday parks and housing their would be a Bastille style revolt. I will sign it but the way the FC manages land and the clear felling of conifer plantations leaves a lot to be desired and if it was put in the hands of the likes The Woodland Trust, RSPB or The National Trust it might be better.

 

[LuptonM]

i'm not convinced that its necessarily a bad thing - woodlands in private hands are often more diverse and better managed. (they are actually planning to sell of 33% of the estate - and out of this two thirds (ie 22% of the whole) will be going to community groups and charities - only 1/3 (11% of the whole) will go to private companies / individuals, and they would still need a felling licence to fell. also whaty do the petioners think the FC does with its plantations - it fells them (wood really does grow on trees)

38 degrees is a leftwing body and thus bound to be in opposition of anything the condems are planning

U mean Condemned right?

 

[big soft moose]

changing the land use would also require planning permsion so isnt that likely - if private investors do buy in it is most likely that they will be interested in the tax shelter advantages and management on the ground wont actually change much.

 

[CHJ]

But an awful lot of them 'owned' by investment management companies now restrict access to the bare minimum of existing public access paths etc.

Several parcels of woodland that I was able to roam as a youngster are now plastered with Private Keep Out signs in this less tolerant society, and parcels of woodland I enjoyed with my children for picnics etc. are now either fenced or have off road parking blocked to make it as difficult as possible to access.

To me this rush to sell off 'the family silver' so to speak just to help balance the current set of account books is tantamount to stealing future generations heritage.

I'm all for good woodland management but not all things managed are for the better of our enjoyment of the countryside, seem to recall an awful lot of mismanagement with conifer planting for quick profit motives in my lifetime.

 

[big soft moose]

i'm not convinced that its necessarily a bad thing - woodlands in private hands are often more diverse and better managed. (they are actually planning to sell of 33% of the estate - and out of this two thirds (ie 22% of the whole) will be going to community groups and charities - only 1/3 (11% of the whole) will go to private companies / individuals, and they would still need a felling licence to fell. also whaty do the petioners think the FC does with its plantations - it fells them (wood really does grow on trees)

38 degrees is a leftwing body and thus bound to be in opposition of anything the condems are planning

U mean Condemned right?

I dont have a lot of time for Davey and Nick nick - but in this case i tend to feel that getting as much of the land asset ( including nnrs as well as forestry holding) out of the neglectful hands of govt and into the hands of bodies like the NT, RSPB, wildlife trusts etc , can only be a good thing - and if the price of that is 11% of the forestry going to private companies then so be it (especially as the 11% will likely mainly comprise uniterestring sitka spruce blocks - places like the new forest are not in danger whatever 38 deg would like us to think)

also in reply to chas - a nature conservation proffesional i'm not convinced that lots of access off the paths is a good thing anyway, and yes there hhas been a lot of misguided conffier for profit planting - much of it under the auspices of the Fc and FE

 

[CHJ]

Well if the petition and any media attention it generates only acts to make those responsible for the 'sell off' more accountable to public opinion and preferences even if it's only because they can see ballot box implications, or the chance of some deeper scrutiny of their motives and hidden agendas, corporate memberships etc. it may make some 'think' a little more about the subject and not try and rush through cleverly written conditions of sale.

 

[Cowboy _Builder]

I'd like to buy a £100.000 worth, how much do you think I would get ...
When you look at the tax allowances it would be a good investment ....I'm led to belive there's No CG Tax and after 2 years ownership ,no inheritence tax and the only major out lay is a fence to keep the "Plebs"out ... :wink:

 

[OLD]

No one has mentioned carbon offset and dealing with CO2 why would you sell your forests with these problems to deal with.

 

[big soft moose]

because a) temperate forestry doesnt do that much to deal with C02 anyway - what is really important is troppical reaforestation - and b) the woodlands will still exist once they are sold and the govt will still have control over whether they can be cleared - taking out more than 5% of your holding requires a felling licence from the FC regardless of ownership of the forest

 

[Jacob]

because a) temperate forestry doesnt do that much to deal with C02 anyway - what is really important is troppical reaforestation -

Either way it's directly proportional to the biomass. You get more biomass in a tropical forest true, but no reason for neglecting temperate zones. It all adds up. In terms of carbon sequestration a dense conifer plantation on a peat bog is pretty good.

b) the woodlands will still exist once they are sold and the govt will still have control over whether they can be cleared - taking out more than 5% of your holding requires a felling licence from the FC regardless of ownership of the forest

Er - I'll believe that when I see it.

 

[big soft moose]

Er - I'll believe that when I see it.

do some research then - the felling licence system has been in operation for about 30 years - plenty of examples for you to see there

 

[misterfish]

They interviewed somebody from 38degrees on the farming program this morning on Radio 4.

He made some interesting points - like it costs us each a miniscule 30p a year in funding for the Forestry Commssion.

Previous areas quietly sold off have gone from an area with a car park, picnic area and a locked 5 bar access gate.

Although it is promised that access after any sell off would be maintained, this access may be for walking only with access removed for horse riders and cyclists.

100% of FC foresrty land is managed to FSC standards compared to only 16% of privately owned areas.

I signed the petition yesterday after reading Jacob's initial post. The political spectrum placing of the organisation is of no concern to me, but the less than impressive history of government sell-offs of previous parts of the infrastructure that are owned by 'us' with the subsequent higher costs and emphasis on profits for shareholders with 'us' then seen as an easy way to get funding and profits. It always seems that a few 'at the top' do well at the expense of the rest of us.

Misterfish

 

[studders]

Cemeteries sold for a Pound then re-sold for 3 Million ring any bells?

 

[MIGNAL]

Not to worry. After they have bought a chunk of Forest they'll be able to get their tax breaks + a begging application for a Grant. No doubt funded by the taxpayer.
In the dead of the night they'll be able to chop down a few prime Oaks. Not a chance of getting caught. Budget cuts to the FC, just can't police everything you know!