Massive sell-off of Forestry Commission land in England

joshtp

yeehaamcgee wrote:

lm_trek wrote:

Llandegla isn't a proper trail its a fun run, no real challenge

What the hell is wrong with that, and why does that make it not a PROPER trail?

personally I like a challenge...but not everyone.. some people just like riding their bikes... and when I'm feeling a bit flat I too enjoy a "fun run" Llandegla is great. Now shut up.

Andy!

yeehaamcgee wrote:

I'd live in it, and hunt people. Walkers, bikers, doggers, the lot.
Then I'd mount their heads on the wall of my log-shack.
Of course, I'd need to practice my deep-south stereotype accent first.

+1

Always wanted a log cabin in the hills that is completely unreachable by anything other than helicopter or dog sled in winter.



This is indeed worrying though Hopefully the land and it's use by the public and for sports will be protected.

Would be nice if they installed some trail lights

_jon_

There is a petition against this here-
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forests#petition

Northwind

This doesn't affect scotland (and apparently not Wales either) but I did find myself wondering how much Traquair forest at innerleithen is worth...

chedabob wrote:

I'm not an expert, but I don't think every forest can be used for harvesting.

OK, big thread which may be boring.

Can't speak for england but a lot of allegedly managed scottish FC forests aren't commercially viable, there's a reason the land was available in the first place, it's generally very poor with either bad ground, bad access, or both. The D&G forests are perfect examples, there's god knows how much FC land where there's just no point in them harvesting, it'd cost more to cut than it would fetch on the market. Like eating celery.

So what would happen obviously is that the valuable commercial forestry would get sold while the FC would be left with the crap. And then in 10 years everyone woulds say "Why doesn't the FC make any money" while the private enterprises that bought the managed forests at a knock down price will be profiting based on 50 years of FC investment in growth and infrastructure.

Mind you it's not all bad, sometimes the crap forestry makes for really good mountain biking- steep slopes, close trees etc. And it reduces the clashes, since cutting a plantation usually wrecks the trails under it so it's good when mtb trails are built in unprofitable trees.

ride_whenever

Northwind wrote:

there's god knows how much FC land where there's just no point in them harvesting, it'd cost more to cut than it would fetch on the market. Like eating celery.

Awesome sentence... It's perfectly clear what you mean whilst making absolutely no logical sense at all!

spongtastic

What will happen is that the majoritty of FC areas will be managed as a commercial forest, ie planted and stripped on a cycle dependant on what trees are there, meaning it will be mostly turned to quick growing pine. The whole thing was set up to provide timber commercially in the first place so don't listen to carp about them not being viable.

Access will still be guaranteed but once every few years people will find their lovely sweeping trails through the forest are wiped out. You can have right of way, but there's no guaranteed you'll be able to cycle across it.

The FC have in recent years stopped clearing on a commercial basis, yes they clear but it's not a major source of income, as they've relied on grant income and have turned their hands more to conservation often not replanting in certain areas.

It will probably also be the case that the Trail Centres and Forest Holiday Centres are sold off, which will mean that the land area around these wouldn't be commercially harvested.

cloudynights

in the eighties our utility companies were sold off ,are we happy with how we are ripped off now for using them, now they want to sell parts of our countryside off, can you tell me your comfortable about that , thin edge of the wedge

Northwind

spongtastic wrote:

The whole thing was set up to provide timber commercially in the first place so don't listen to carp about them not being viable.

Not so much- the FC was establised after WW1 showed an overdependance on imported timber, with trench warfare consuming huge amounts of wood, and coal mining needing it too. Basically they were founded as a strategic reserve rather than as a commercial venture.

Briggo

shm_uk wrote:

At the moment you can ride most trail centres for free if you avoid the on-site parking.

Either parking fees will go through the roof (although £6.50 for a day at Whinlatter is already blimmin high), or you'll be charged at the trail head per bike or (heaven forbid) per circuit ... or summat daft like that.

Brilliant, so you want the trails to be kept up to a good standard etc but you dont want to pay for it.

You moan about £6.50 being expensive but for a days entertainment thats bloody cheap, thats a cinema ticket for a couple of hours or 2 pints down the pub.

Friggin annoys the hell out of me when people are tight and wont pay but expect the service to be there.

Northwind

Briggo wrote:

You moan about £6.50 being expensive but for a days entertainment thats bloody cheap, thats a cinema ticket for a couple of hours or 2 pints down the pub.

Spot on. And for trail centre riding, quite often it's less than you'll pay in petrol to get there too. Always amazes me how many people skive the parking fees at trail centres, take a look around glentress frinstance on a saturday and the carpark's chock full but how many cars have tickets on? And every penny of the parking fees goes into trail maintenance and building too.

Mind you not everyone knows that and the ticket machines aren't that obvious so I'm sure some people just don't realise. But most do I'm sure.

andyrm

Northwind wrote:

Briggo wrote:

You moan about £6.50 being expensive but for a days entertainment thats bloody cheap, thats a cinema ticket for a couple of hours or 2 pints down the pub.

Spot on. And for trail centre riding, quite often it's less than you'll pay in petrol to get there too. Always amazes me how many people skive the parking fees at trail centres, take a look around glentress frinstance on a saturday and the carpark's chock full but how many cars have tickets on? And every penny of the parking fees goes into trail maintenance and building too.

Mind you not everyone knows that and the ticket machines aren't that obvious so I'm sure some people just don't realise. But most do I'm sure.

Agreed. So you want to bring your 3k bike out to play on a trail paid for and maintained by someone else, but contribute nothing? £6.50 is nothing for a day's parking in a secure place with good facilities like at most trail centres. I expect we'll see sense rear it's head shortly. Rather than the fat cats the loony left are trying to convince us are coming, I reckon we'll more likely see conglomerates headed up by an operator company, a trail builder on a rolling contract and then an equity backer. In other words, experts in all 3 key aspects each with a financial interest in making the trail centres a viable proposition. Sounds good to me.

Northwind

Mmm. Maybe. But at the same time there's a good chance of getting liability-shy operators, changes of forestry practice, etc. Yes "rights of way" will be preserved but bike trails aren't rights of way. Way too early to know, I'm sure it'll be a positive thing for some areas but I'd be surprised if it's not the end of some great trails too.

Anonymous

You mean liability-shy operators, like the frikking FC?

Northwind

No, I mean actual liability-shy operators without the FC's fairly strong insurance. If the FC really were as liability shy as Teh Internetz would have us believe they'd have bulldozed every red and black trail in the country.

Anonymous

It's not far off what's happening. Scottish centres seem to have a different attitude.

Andy!

That's cos it's Irn-Bru country

Would be nice a multi-billionaire mountain bike enthusiast bought a few forests. Maybe send some podium girls to see Mr Branson and convert him from kite surfing.

Anonymous

It doesn't really matter who owns the forests. When trail centres began in this country, the FC wasn't exactly 100% behind them, but they gained in popularity anyways. The FC only really came into it later.

Any half intelligent person who buys a forest, and sees the opportunity there is to make money from car parks, or charging rent to someone like OnePlanet would take advantage of the revenue stream.

andyrm

Northwind wrote:

No, I mean actual liability-shy operators without the FC's fairly strong insurance. If the FC really were as liability shy as Teh Internetz would have us believe they'd have bulldozed every red and black trail in the country.

And if everything the typically left leaning news media would have us believe, we'd all be back in the workhouse by now.... If anything, I think these proposed changes could see a far more sustainable business model developed, something along the lines of the ski/snowboard resort industry where entire micro-economies are built on outdoor tourism. Given the best MTB areas are often in outlying and relatively deprived areas, surely it has to be a good thing to allow them to build an income stream to an area?

Anonymous

andyrm YES!!!
HELL yes!

Andy!

That could be quite cool.

Well maintained trails, dry ski slope, lake and river sports etc etc.

Stick some log cabins up for small businesses which specialise in 'green' technologies and products and shops for the people using the area and the people working there.

But I still prefer to get away from other people and any commercialism. That is what I ride for.

Northwind

andyrm wrote:

Given the best MTB areas are often in outlying and relatively deprived areas, surely it has to be a good thing to allow them to build an income stream to an area?

You mean exactly like has already happened?

yeehaamcgee wrote:

It's not far off what's happening.

That's just total hyperbole IMO. There's new challenging trails being built still, Dalby shows that, and Kielder's got plenty of challenging features. There's still plenty of ways to hurt yourself at english and welsh trail centres. People always point to limited changes as if they're representative of all trails but some of the tamest routes are the oldest. FC are certainly litigation aware but I think people get very carried away with this.

Anonymous

what? hell no. If you go to somewhere like the Alps, you can see how a surprisingly strong economy can be built around mountain sports tourism. NOWHERE in this country has (even tried to, AFAIK) cashed in on things in the same way.

Northwind

yeehaamcgee wrote:

NOWHERE in this country has (even tried to, AFAIK) cashed in on things in the same way.

Not to the same extent maybe but take a look around... Trail developments are often designed to bring income into struggling areas and they work. The best example's still Laggan, it constitutes something like 95% of the local economy but it's one of the driving forces behind most of hte FC developments. Your 7 Stanes, most of the welsh centres... In fact I doubt there's been many biking developments that didn't take this into account.

Sure we don't do it like the french do but then our situation's different- we don't have the winter sports industry, we don't have the resorts and we don't have the mountains. They're largely adding a summer sport to their existing infrastructure. Fort William's done that a bit but where in England are you going to build a Les Gets exactly?

Anonymous

Sorry, but that's just blowhard bollocks. There is very little evidence that the way trail centres exist currently, brings substantial money into the surrounding area. The centre itself may benefit, but nowhere else.
By building more of a resort-like affair, you could keep people in the area for a longer stay, and encourage them to try other things, and, more importantly, draw in people who just want to try the sport out, rather than the hardcore that have little interest in spending their cash elsewhere.

Danny-T

Be interested to know how much tourism was at afan pre trail centre. There surely must be benefit to local economy of trail centres, why else would there be so much being poured into the welsh centres?

Anonymous

Danny-T wrote:

Be interested to know how much tourism was at afan pre trail centre. There surely must be benefit to local economy of trail centres, why else would there be so much being poured into the welsh centres?

So that the FC can make money out of them?

I don't know anything about Afan, but do you think it looks like anybody going there to ride is spending money anywhere else?

cooldad

I'd rather commercialism stayed out of it. Prefer riding natural trails anyway. Cafes, bike wash, shops, sodding McTrails.

Anonymous

cooldad wrote:

I'd rather commercialism stayed out of it. Prefer riding natural trails anyway. Cafes, bike wash, shops, sodding McTrails.

Well if you ride natural trails anyway, since you're so awesome, then it's not going to affect you then is it?
So fuck off. Troll.

cooldad

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Danny-T wrote:

Be interested to know how much tourism was at afan pre trail centre. There surely must be benefit to local economy of trail centres, why else would there be so much being poured into the welsh centres?

So that the FC can make money out of them?

I don't know anything about Afan, but do you think it looks like anybody going there to ride is spending money anywhere else?

True, nice cheap campsite, fire, meat, what more do you need?

cooldad

yeehaamcgee wrote:

cooldad wrote:

I'd rather commercialism stayed out of it. Prefer riding natural trails anyway. Cafes, bike wash, shops, sodding McTrails.

Well if you ride natural trails anyway, since you're so awesome, then it's not going to affect you then is it?
So fuck off. Troll.

Pretty crap actually, but I don't like the idea waiting in line with a number to be herded down some groomed slope.
Have seen some of the mountains in N Wales - personally I think neon burger stands on the tops might spoil them a little. Obviously you would disagree.
Just my personal trollish opinion of course.

And how do you do that swearing bit? Even censors me if I tell you to piss off.