Forestry Commission Sell Off

I thought I'd try and get it in here first before folk get in a flap like they're doing on every other forum I frequent.

Seems that the government plan to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
I seem to remember the same tale every time we've had a new government for as long as I can remember.

The smaller the woodland, the better it can be managed.
If it is small enough, the owner can know practically every tree. In larger woods, they can only think in big management units.
From almost every point of view, it is better if big woods are broken up.

You cannot (legally) fell a woodland without a felling license, and a felling license includes a replanting obligation.
Woodland stays as woodland, except in exceptional circumstances.

exactamundo

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sorry but that is plain wrong

You CAN fell if the trees are less than 8 cm diametre, and you can fell bigger trees every calendar quarter without a licence as long as you do not exceed 5 cu m

So..IN THEORY we could fell all our small wood over a number of years ..and not re plant...and end up with a bare field again, which we could then use for intensive farming ( as it is still agricultural afa planning is concerned, which forestry is counted as....)

So sorry HL, not quite correct there.....and a worrying idea tbh.

WE would not do this, but those who planted vast tracts under the FC Woodland Grant Scheme in the past, who have reached the end of the contract, could....

So basically land planted up 20 years ago as woodland, could be felled, over a period, and returned to agriculture...and then re planted in a few years to get grants again....

Ok would be a good idea carbon sink wise, but not from a habitat point of view....or an amenity one

Better to leave trees to reach maturity, fell, replace and allow to re grow...or coppice on a 15 year rotation

Which is what we do, but get no financial help at all for doing it.

Yet again, if we had spent all our cash we would get help...but because we are thrifty and have cash to spend, we don't....

Sigh.

But if enough people believe the wrong rules, that would be good too...

Except it would potentially stop people fron growing coppice and felling it for fuel or other use...and also might stop people from planting small scale wood and harvesting the timber...

Personally I would rather see micro woodlands, managed for fuel ( carbon neutral!!) , than no woodland at all....

Compostwoman wrote:Sorry but that is plain wrong

Slightly wrong, yes. Plain wrong, no.

You CAN fell if the trees are less than 8 cm diametre, and you can fell bigger trees every calendar quarter without a licence as long as you do not exceed 5 cu m

Indeed, but how many trees on FC land are less than 8cm? Except those which have been recently felled and replanted, and they will be obligated under the license they were felled under (and that obligation would be transferred with the land).

WE would not do this, but those who planted vast tracts under the FC Woodland Grant Scheme in the past, who have reached the end of the contract, could....

How long will it take to flatten a vast tract at 20cu m /annum? A long time I reckon.

If the forests end up in responsible hands it may be no bad thing. FC land tends to be fairly monoculture.

Wilhelm Von Rhomboid wrote:If the forests end up in responsible hands it may be no bad thing. FC land tends to be fairly monoculture.

IF

FC does a lot more than just plant, manage, fell trees, though. A lot of amenity use, a lot of wildlife and habitat creation and management.

Not convinced this would be a good thing at all.

Compostwoman wrote:

Wilhelm Von Rhomboid wrote:If the forests end up in responsible hands it may be no bad thing. FC land tends to be fairly monoculture.

IF

And why wouldn't it?
It is not a quick or easy enough turnaround for people to invest in it purely for the money, and as we have discussed, it is not easy to turn it into not-woodland; so most, if not all of it will be sold to people who want a woodland.
Actually, that is not strictly true. I expect several big chunks will be sold to investors who will carve it up and sell it on as many smaller plots.
Certainly, I would if I had a few million to play with.

FC does a lot more than just plant, manage, fell trees, though. A lot of amenity use, a lot of wildlife and habitat creation and management.

Public footpaths do not stop being public footpaths when the land is sold. The woods with the most wildlife and amenity value will likely have the least commercial value.

Not convinced this would be a good thing at all.

Maybe not, but it is a long long way from a bad thing.

I disagree with you HL.

Compostwoman wrote:I disagree with you HL.

About bloody time.
Let's have a row.

NO.

I have made my point. You have made yours. We cannot agree. We have had a discussion and still cannot agree.

Enough said.

I'm not worried about this one yet (not saying I won't be though later on) just because I think that not enough has been planned as to how the FC break up is going to be managed. There is already a huge amount of discussion about this in the media and from various charities and conservation groups and I'm pretty sure that Caroline Lucas will have a fair bit to say on it too. That much noise shouldn't be completely ignored.

Something I'm going to keep a very careful eye on that's for sure.

Mrs C

HL said - Public footpaths do not stop being public footpaths when the land is sold. The woods with the most wildlife and amenity value will likely have the least commercial value.

Yes they do. You should see the different signs on Exmoor for instance where I just spent 2 wks.

Mrs C - I agree there's not been enough planning for this idea ... but that hasn't stopped the ConDems so far with any of the other idiot ideas they're making law.

I'm worried for another, broader reason too, In last night's news the BBC had a story about the stag that was shot by tiverton. the had some twit from the shooting society on saying the stag had been shot as part of a cull and that he was too old and would die horribly and painfully if they didn't. What bollocks! And what about what deer experts - as opposed to shooting experts - said? 12 is by no means old for a good stag and he looked fit as a fiddle.

My point being that the BBC TV seems to be in the ConDem pocket, making calming noises, full of specious lies that are designed to stop complaint. Also, the whole tenor of the clip was "how sad", all emotional touchy-feely, there-there stuff. It's all right all you silly people who complain, the stag didn't suffer. thereby taking no account at all of the real concerns behind the complaints and worry and the observer article.

Goebles eat your heart out ??? We can be a very stupid and connable country. I don't want this, on any level. I don't want to be "looked after" in that sense I want to be heard. AND most important, I want things done because people have planned, gone right back to causality rather than money and seflishness, and caring for the whole planet not just a few humans.

Yes, i expect you'll all say I'm crying for the moon ... but that's waht we all need to do. change attitiudes and peiorities. Our attitudes to the FC and woodland in general is just one more things in huge list of what needs changing. We have to learn to look from the woodland's point of view not the human one, and the perspective of all our elder brothers on this planet who are not human and who we (in general) don't give a damn about if they seem to compete with us.

Elen Sentier wrote:HL said - Public footpaths do not stop being public footpaths when the land is sold. The woods with the most wildlife and amenity value will likely have the least commercial value.

Yes they do. You should see the different signs on Exmoor for instance where I just spent 2 wks.

Care to elaborate?

I'm worried for another, broader reason too, In last night's news the BBC had a story about the stag that was shot by tiverton. the had some twit from the shooting society on saying the stag had been shot as part of a cull...

That is the normal way that deer are managed. Not convinced it is normal to cull during the rutting season mind, nor to take out the best specimen.
OTOH, he was probably the most valuable kill financially which was probably a significant consideration.

The thing is that nothing short of bringing down the government is going to stop this sell off, talk is cheap and complaining is just good for spleen venting - trying to put together co-operatives for purchasing these forests and woods are likely to be the most use...

Badger wrote:The thing is that nothing short of bringing down the government is going to stop this sell off,..

Can't say that this would be top of my list of reasons for bringing down the government.
But they have been selling off bits and bobs of the Forestry for years. I doubt this is actually any much different.
But imagine the headlines: "Forestry Commission carry on as Normal!"

Oh, and regarding the stag, it has been pointed out that, since he has been dominant for a few years now, a significant number of the eligible ladies in the herd will be his daughters or granddaughters (possibly both at once).