save the Forest from Government sell off....................

Anonymous

You believe that, based on what exactly?

Nachimir

The theory is that free markets can run things wonderfully. In practice, privatisation often leads to companies that are allowed to make profit but still get plenty of government dollar, which comes with inefficiency and a fat sense of entitlement too. This might not be the case with forestry, but selling it off doesn't necessarily mean that things will be better.

I'd like to believe in the invisible hand, but governments have been fetishising it for three decades or so and there are loads of bad examples, from toxic waste being handled badly to railways, well, in general. Commercial organisations are full of people under pressure, so cut corners wherever they can get away with it, and turn on a dime for the sake of financial growth. Long-term thinking is often sacrificed for short-term growth, especially in businesses with investors or shareholders.

I'm not saying they're bad through and through, but don't for a second think they won't f%ck you if it suits them. Businesses are not your friends, they may just happen to do things that please you.

cee

Chrisdawg wrote:

Granted that it is unlikely that wholesale development will take place, but you can bet your bottom dollar that any investor will want some of his dosh back fairly quickly, and he aint going to get that from a few mountain bikers. So guess wher it will come from; TIMBER and that comes from trees on the back of a timber wagon.

true...however the very nature of the timber business gives a 15 year cycle between planting and harvesting. These 'forests' are really tree farms. farmers only harvest crops when they are at optimum condition for sale....you can't speed up the growth of trees.

Anonymous

Chrisdawg wrote:

yada yada yada So guess wher it will come from; TIMBER and that comes from trees on the back of a timber wagon.

Which is what most forests are used for anyway.

Bar Shaker

Personally I think selling the railways was a really good thing. Nationalised industries are always heavily unionised and end up existing solely to provide employment for their workforce, not for the customer and certainly not for the tax payer. The railways are still heavily funded by the tax payer but the service is in a different league to what it was 20 years ago. This is because operators are regulated, must meet service standards and must compensate their customers when they fail to meet these standards. The same applies to water companies and as someone who has seen turds whilst windsurfing off UK beaches, the improvement in water quality and sewage treatment since privatisation is very welcome in my book.

The government funds the Forestry Commission by around £76m a year (2007-8 ). Because the FC trades its harvest of timber, the cost to the tax payer is approx £15m a year.

Lobbying for some of the saved £15m to be spent on providing, maintaining and improving public access to privately owned woodlands (82% of all woodland in England is owned privately, much of it by the Woodland & National Trusts) would be a much better start than moaning about 'fat cat' businesses and how they will chop all the trees down.

Nachimir

Bar Shaker wrote:

The railways are still heavily funded by the tax payer but the service is in a different league to what it was 20 years ago. This is because operators are regulated, must meet service standards and must compensate their customers when they fail to meet these standards.

Rubbish, we now have the highest rail fares in Europe coupled with one of the worst services and frequent overcrowding. Maybe you enjoy paying over the odds (or £2 - 3K a year for a season ticket) and being packed in like a sardine next to a stinking toilet when you travel?

In many ways it's not as bad a rail service as America, but it's p*ss poor compared to, say, the Netherlands. UK rail is hardly a poster child for privatisation; there's nothing to crow about when an industry has so obviously and catastrophically underachieved.

stumpyjon

Might be worth waiting a little while before wholescale hysteria kicks in. The guys on the ground in the FC don't know what's going to happen yet. Various bits of smaller woodland have been sold off quietly over the last few years anywhere.

My guess is that many of the established centres will be retained in some form of public control as will places like Sherwood and the New Forest.

Not sure petitions make any difference anyway, and even less so with this current administration who seem hellbent on changing everything as quickly as possible without stopping to consider why it needs changing.

Bar Shaker

Nachimir wrote:

Bar Shaker wrote:

The railways are still heavily funded by the tax payer but the service is in a different league to what it was 20 years ago. This is because operators are regulated, must meet service standards and must compensate their customers when they fail to meet these standards.

Rubbish, we now have the highest rail fares in Europe coupled with one of the worst services and frequent overcrowding. Maybe you enjoy paying over the odds (or £2 - 3K a year for a season ticket) and being packed in like a sardine next to a stinking toilet when you travel?

In many ways it's not as bad a rail service as America, but it's p*ss poor compared to, say, the Netherlands. UK rail is hardly a poster child for privatisation; there's nothing to crow about when an industry has so obviously and catastrophically underachieved.

Not wishing to take the thread off track but I suspect you are too young to remember when the trains were run by British Rail. The over crowding was much worse, the trains frequently broke down and the workforce frequently went on strike.

Yes the journeys are more expensive but that is more to do with subsidies than operator efficiency.

I would rather pay the extra and have reliable, air conditioned trains, running at every 6 minutes in peak times, than saving some money and having what used to be called British Rail. I can't remember the last time I couldn't get a seat at rush hour (7am in, 5pm out).

Europe still subsidies its railways heavily and it is regarded as a transport system for the poor who aren't in a hurry. Our train network is better than most European countries, with the possible exception of the French TGV. But that's at least as expensive as our long haul routes.

Governments are awful at running businesses. I realise the Forestry Commission is an NGO (owned by the government but without ministerial control), but its still effectively part of the civil service, answerable to the Treasury. By selling the forests, a big chunk of national debt can be repaid and £15m a year could be spent on improving public access to the forests that were sold for private industry to manage.

fungus_the_muffin_man

Those who aren't that bothered about it. I'll remind you of that when he forests are sold and your moaning that you now have to pay 20-30 quid to ride the trails you could previously ride for free.

Anonymous

Fungus The Muffin Man wrote:

Those who aren't that bothered about it. I'll remind you of that when he forests are sold and your moaning that you now have to pay 20-30 quid to ride the trails you could previously ride for free.

And I will quote you, over and over and over and over and over and over when it doesn't happen.
I'll even make it my life's work to get the daily mail to do the same, so you can see it every morning in your newspaper.

fungus_the_muffin_man

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Fungus The Muffin Man wrote:

Those who aren't that bothered about it. I'll remind you of that when he forests are sold and your moaning that you now have to pay 20-30 quid to ride the trails you could previously ride for free.

And I will quote you, over and over and over and over and over and over when it doesn't happen.
I'll even make it my life's work to get the daily mail to do the same, so you can see it every morning in your newspaper.

Thanks god I don't buy newspapers, especially the daily wail.

It does beg the question though.

Would people be happy paying for a day on the trails and how much would you be happy to pay?

Anonymous

We already pay for riding at Llandegla. And you're meant to pay at Coedy as well. Same with Glentress.

Chrisdawg

The FC is a government department and has been since 1919 and is directly responsible to a forestry minister (Jim Paice). It is not a NGO.

Yeeha, my comments are based on fact, that fact being that FC grants come fro the EU, access 2 to be exact, Llandegla scaped through on access 3.this funded the centre and the trails, this will not happen again.
My point about the timber was really about how its harvested and what constraints are in place to ensure that legitimate activities can carry on with the mminimum of disruption. This generally works well were formal trails are concerned. I have little faith in private harvesting companies doing the same!!!

Cee; 15 year rotation!! typical spruce plantation has a rotation of 45 years depending on yield class, first thinnings sually start at 20.

Anonymous

Llandegla is NOT an FC forest though. It is privately owned and run by UPM.

We have had, and still do have, trail centres without any FC involvement.

Bar Shaker

Chrisdawg wrote:

The FC is a government department and has been since 1919 and is directly responsible to a forestry minister (Jim Paice). It is not a NGO.

FC is not a government department. The FC is annexed to DEFRA and is run by staff who are ultimately answerable to the civil servants and staff at DEFRA but who are otherwise autonomous. Jim Paice is Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There is no Minister of Forests.

The CAA is exactly the same, also raises its own revenue (it actually makes a profit) but there is a Minister for Aviation (Jim Fitzpatrick) who sets aviation policy. Like Jim Paice, he has nothing to do with the day to day running of the NGO that puts that policy into action.

The Forestry Commission, the CAA, the Environment Agency and the Regional Development Agencies are amongst the biggest NGOs in the UK.

One point remains that the only worthwhile lobbying is to secure some of the current £15m pa budget to be ring fenced for on going spending on public access to all UK forests.

Chrisdawg

Sorry but you are wrong the FC is not a NGO "On 1 September 1919 the Forestry Act came into force. This set up the Forestry Commission and gave it responsibility for woods in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Eight Forestry Commissioners were charged with promoting forestry, developing afforestation, the production of timber, and making grants to private landowners. They met for the first time in November under Chairman Lord Lovat". It comes under the financial control of DEFRA. Jim Paice is the minister with responsibility for forestry his portfolio is:
•Farming
•Food
•Animal health (including endemic and exotic diseases)
•Responsibility and cost-sharing
•Welfare of farm animals
•Single Payments Scheme
•RDPE
•Forestry (including Forestry Commission)
•Agriculture and forestry carbon budgets
Incidentally if the FC did not have to provide all the free acess that it does and not keep the processing industry going when the private sector is not felling then it, like the CAA might make a profit.

Bar Shaker

Chris, you may need to go and look up what an NGO is.

Classic NGOs are the CAA and the Environment Agency. Compare and contrast with how they differ from the Forestry Commission, or not, as the case may be.

Jim Paice is the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food. To say he is the Minister for Forests (just because that is one incy wincy bit of his portfolio) is like saying Philip Hammond is the Minister for Cycling.

I don't know why you are concerned that the FC may be an NGO.

Chrisdawg

Bar Shaker, to clarify FC England is a non ministerial government department. Wales and Scotland have devolved responsibilities for forestry. Whilst Paice might only have an 'incy wincy' bit of forestry responsibility in his portfolio, he sure as hell can f##k up mountain biking. Cos as of now all non core FC activities are going to stop.

Thewaylander

Seriously you are all craping over something that will come to nothing.

Mtbing and walking access is some of the easiest and cheapest way to get a return ont here land while they wait for maturity for felling. any other ways of making cash require development, and if you read the text put out so far this wotn be permisable.

So think guys just simple level common sense.

bails87

Thewaylander wrote:

common sense.

You do know we're on the internet don't you.....

Thewaylander

Yup where I can't spell or put a coherent sentence together as a norm hehe, But there must be some hope for the human race lol

Bar Shaker

Chrisdawg wrote:

Bar Shaker, to clarify FC England is a non ministerial government department. Wales and Scotland have devolved responsibilities for forestry. Whilst Paice might only have an 'incy wincy' bit of forestry responsibility in his portfolio, he sure as hell can f##k up mountain biking. Cos as of now all non core FC activities are going to stop.

The Forestry Commission's core activity is making £61m a year from its various activities. One of these is providing public access and charging people to use the facilities by charging them to park their cars. I have no idea how much this raises but I sure as hell doubt it's going to stop.

Chris I really think you should read the White Paper on this before guessing what will and won't happen... and then posting as though your guesses were fact.

Personally I see no down side in the sale, but do see plenty of opportunity for investment in more public access and facilities... if we make a case for it.

Chrisdawg

Guesses, mmmm! wait until big society has its way. All those nasty bikes churning up the ground disturbing butterflies, birds and trampling wild plants, powerful lobbyists these people.
Net expenditure on public forests by the Forestry Commission in 2009-10 totalled £36 million. This comprised £23 million in England, £11 million in Wales and £2 million in Scotland.

Recreation, conservation & heritage accounted for £56 million of total expenditure in 2009-10, harvesting & haulage for £41 million and other expenditure on public forests for £58 million.

Timber sales generated a total income of £77 million in 2009-10. Recreation, conservation & heritage accounted for a further £19 million of income and other income from public forests for £23 million.


Profit from timber £36m, recreation you do the maths, looks like a good investment if you are prepared to pay through the nose to ride your bike.