Lake District forest campaign

Scottsparkrider
Scottsparkrider Posts: 59
edited January 2011 in MTB general
This issue is of critical importance to the future of mountain biking in the Lake District - and the rest of England.

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/ ... tion_plan/
«134

Comments

  • piker
    piker Posts: 353
    Llandegla is a privately owned forest,not saying it should happen but it can go right for mountain bikers as well.Forestry is a business and owners like Tilhill who own Llandegla know how to make it pay.
  • omegas
    omegas Posts: 970
    piker wrote:
    Llandegla is a privately owned forest,

    Yes Llandegal is a good example of a privately owned forest that has worked for mountain bikers. Maybe they should sell all the forests off, then ban all walkers , kids and dogs. :lol:
    http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/1844902/
    http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/1844919/
  • Scottsparkrider
    Scottsparkrider Posts: 59
    The reality is that, in all likelyhood, very few forests and woodland would be converted into trail centres.

    When these forests and woodland are passed into private ownership there is no onus on the new owners to provide acess to cyclists, mountain bikers, horse riders or even car parking or picnic facilities - even if these facilities previously exist on site.

    Already there are examples of this happening - such as Rigg Wood near Coniston. The new owners have fenced off the woodland, preventing access to the car park and picnic site and bikers can no longer enter this area of land in the Lake District.
  • tsenior
    tsenior Posts: 664
    there is no onus on the new owners to provide acess to cyclists, mountain bikers, horse riders or even car parking or picnic facilities

    one onus is to charge a few quid for a car park and rent out a few 100m2 for a cafe/bikeshop/showerblock. charge for a bike wash, training facilities, in the lake district why not have a few pods/log cabins as well.

    this is probably more profitable than growing trees; which you would still be able to do over 99% of the land.
  • Scottsparkrider
    Scottsparkrider Posts: 59
    The question should then be asked whether it is comercially viable to have trailhead facilities in every parcel of woodland sold into private hands. Is this scenario realistic or even desirable?

    Would you like to see every forest and woodland developed along commercial lines or development kept to a minimum to reduce the impact on what are essentially wildlife habitat and places that people use to escape towns, cities and other areas of development?
  • Scottsparkrider
    Scottsparkrider Posts: 59
    The campaign link:

    http://www.savelakelandsforests.org.uk/
  • *AJ*
    *AJ* Posts: 1,080
    Just because people buy these areas of forest land doesnt mean they are going to be able to build what they like on them....

    Its not as easy as that.

    I very much doubt the forests are hgoing to all vanish and be replaced by commercial development.
  • Scottsparkrider
    Scottsparkrider Posts: 59
    Perhaps the most pressing major concern for mountain bikers is the severe restriction to access that these measures would create.
  • tsenior
    tsenior Posts: 664
    "Would you like to see every forest and woodland developed along commercial lines ...?"

    where did i say that?

    the fact that you can provide MB factilites in a forest on a commercial basis is proven but you only need a handfull per region, and they only take up a small area. fact is alot (and increasing ammount) of people only ride trail centres anyway.

    if there is a public right of way or open access land this wont change anything.

    even if not its pretty difficult to completely secure large areas and people will still use them unofficially, twas ever thus.

    i just cant see this changing anything. Sorry.
  • Northwind
    Northwind Posts: 14,675
    Don't fixate on the mtb aspect of this- the fact is it's going to be another classic privatisation scam, selling off the public sector's profitable elements for a knockdown price and leaving us with the stuff nobody else wants (to be followed, in a few years, by lots of complaints that the forestry commission is making less money than it used to) while private enterprise profits. Whether you get to ride your bike in the forests or not is a sideshow, we're getting the shaft either way. Different people have different explanations of why the government's doing this but I don't think anyone agrees it's sound financial practice even before you start to get into the details.

    In general I am anti "us getting the shaft".
    Uncompromising extremist
  • Thewaylander
    Thewaylander Posts: 8,594
    I can't see it causing a bit issue,

    All rights of way have to legally remain and you can't develope the land beyond certain things. and since local authority is hardly particularly effiecient i say this will easily workin favour of us as much as it may work against us.

    this is a situational thing dependent on what access the peice of land has and the intention of the private buyer.
  • Bar Shaker
    Bar Shaker Posts: 2,313
    Northwind wrote:
    Don't fixate on the mtb aspect of this- the fact is it's going to be another classic privatisation scam, selling off the public sector's profitable elements for a knockdown price and leaving us with the stuff nobody else wants (to be followed, in a few years, by lots of complaints that the forestry commission is making less money than it used to) while private enterprise profits. Whether you get to ride your bike in the forests or not is a sideshow, we're getting the shaft either way. Different people have different explanations of why the government's doing this but I don't think anyone agrees it's sound financial practice even before you start to get into the details.

    In general I am anti "us getting the shaft".

    The Forestry Commission loses money, lots of money, every year. If the forests can be sold off and a lobby group can get just 10% of the money currently is used to fund the FC loses used to provide and promote public access, then we all have a result.

    We have discussed this on here before.

    There is far from uniform opposition and a sizeable number of posters see the sale as a good thing. The majority of English woodland is already in private hands or owned by charitable trusts (Woodland Trust, National Trust). I would rather send them £20 and help fund them purchase of the woodlands that come up for sale. They will do more for public access than the Forestry Commission ever will.
    Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
    Boardman FS Pro
  • tightbarsteward
    tightbarsteward Posts: 123
    tsenior wrote:

    the fact that you can provide MB factilites in a forest on a commercial basis is proven but you only need a handfull per region, and they only take up a small area. fact is alot (and increasing ammount) of people only ride trail centres anyway.

    Really? Where is your proof? I ride both trail & natural routes in the lakes and see plenty of bikers on both. Also both Grizedale & Whinlatter could potentially be sold off. Are they not trail centres?
    tsenior wrote:
    if there is a public right of way or open access land this wont change anything.

    It may do. Public rights of way only have to be granted to walkers.
    tsenior wrote:
    even if not its pretty difficult to completely secure large areas and people will still use them unofficially, twas ever thus.

    i just cant see this changing anything. Sorry.

    I think you are underestimating the potential effects of this government proposal. This could seriously restrict access for mountain bikers to natural trails and trail centres which are currently taken for granted.

    Also great swaythes of woodland could be bought up by 'investors' seeking to avoid paying inheritence tax as woodland is exempt of inheritence tax.

    Please I would urge everyone on here to sign this petition, nearly 140000 people already have:

    http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save ... s#petition
  • Northwind
    Northwind Posts: 14,675
    edited January 2011
    Bar Shaker wrote:
    The Forestry Commission loses money, lots of money, every year. If the forests can be sold off and a lobby group can get just 10% of the money currently is used to fund the FC loses used to provide and promote public access, then we all have a result.

    The forestry commission loses £14m per year, which isn't lots of money and is effortlessly offset against the health and environmental benefits. And a lot of their responsibilities aren't profitmaking, and would remain as a cost even if you sold every forest they own and lost the £60 million revenue.

    But if you take away the profitable sites and leave them with the dross and the unmanageable land, which is what's proposed, they'll lose more. Private enterprise isn't falling over itself to buy the many unprofitable sites after all. If you suggested to a private company that they cut losses by selling off a profitable division they'd laugh at you, but when it's the FC apparently it's good financial sense...

    That's assuming that the new owners don't apply for subsidies of course. Which they will.
    Uncompromising extremist
  • tightbarsteward
    tightbarsteward Posts: 123
    Northwind wrote:
    The forestry commission loses £10m per year (apparently- I can only find good numbers for Scotland) which isn't lots of money and is effortlessly offset against the health and environmental benefits.

    According to the Westmoreland Gazette Grizedale Forest creates £10 million per year for the local economy.
  • Scottsparkrider
    Scottsparkrider Posts: 59
    Bar Shaker wrote:
    The Forestry Commission loses money, lots of money, every year. If the forests can be sold off and a lobby group can get just 10% of the money currently is used to fund the FC loses used to provide and promote public access, then we all have a result.

    The majority of English woodland is already in private hands or owned by charitable trusts (Woodland Trust, National Trust). I would rather send them £20 and help fund them purchase of the woodlands that come up for sale. They will do more for public access than the Forestry Commission ever will.

    The Forestry Commission currently costs the taxpayer the equivalent of 30p per person each year. That is substantially less than a £20 trust membership. Besides the National Trust etc have already stated that many of the woodlands would not be of interest to them as they do not fit in with their estate portfolios.
  • Scottsparkrider
    Scottsparkrider Posts: 59
    New newspaper article covering this story:

    http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/campaign- ... Path=news/

    The Friends of the Lake District are also concerned about the threat to access that the proposed sales could have.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Scottsparkrider wrote:
    This issue is of critical importance to the future of mountain biking in the Lake District - and the rest of England.

    http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/ ... tion_plan/
    Oh look, this wonky topic again. :roll:
  • Scottsparkrider
    Scottsparkrider Posts: 59
    Wonky topic? Vitally important topic.
  • Bar Shaker
    Bar Shaker Posts: 2,313
    The £60m revenue from selling timber is at a cost £75m for watching it managing the forests. The least profitable forests are those on steep gradients as all access is more difficult. On a hillside, timber does not grow straight either, as there is less phototropic control of the tree's growth. This makes the timber less valuable.

    It's these very forests that most appeal to mtb riders.
    tightbarsteward wrote:
    According to the Westmoreland Gazette Grizedale Forest creates £10 million per year for the local economy.

    There will still be a forest, there will still be a lumber business and there will still be revenue from public access. There is no reason to suggest that any of this and the benefit to the local community, would not continue.
    Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
    Boardman FS Pro
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Scottsparkrider wrote:
    Wonky topic? Vitally important topic.
    No, it isn't. It really, really isn't.
  • Scottsparkrider
    Scottsparkrider Posts: 59
    Bar Shaker wrote:
    There will still be a forest, there will still be a lumber business and there will still be revenue from public access. There is no reason to suggest that any of this and the benefit to the local community, would not continue.

    Unfortunately the evidence so far is to the contrary.

    Birks Wood, which had a picnic site and car park for the public to use, is now fenced off. This is an example of how the future may look for many of the forests and woods we can currently access thanks to the Forestry Commission.
  • Scottsparkrider
    Scottsparkrider Posts: 59
    Sorry Rigg Wood not Birks Wood
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Scottsparkrider wrote:
    Unfortunately the evidence so far is to the contrary.
    No, it is not. Llandegla is a shining example of how a private venture works.
    When trail centres started they weren't so much funded by the FC, as "reluctantly allowed".
  • Scottsparkrider
    Scottsparkrider Posts: 59
    yeehaamcgee wrote:
    Scottsparkrider wrote:
    Unfortunately the evidence so far is to the contrary.
    No, it is not. Llandegla is a shining example of how a private venture works.
    When trail centres started they weren't so much funded by the FC, as "reluctantly allowed".

    Times change and the Forestry Commission has done a lot of work to support the growth of mountain biking in the UK. Wales is different as you have a devolved Government so your woodland will still be FC owned.

    There are many forests in the UK that contain excellent tracks for mountain biking but are not purpose-built trail centres or recognised rights of way. It is these trails on FC managed land in the Lake District, and the rest of England, that is what we should be very concerned about.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Scottsparkrider wrote:
    yeehaamcgee wrote:
    Scottsparkrider wrote:
    Unfortunately the evidence so far is to the contrary.
    No, it is not. Llandegla is a shining example of how a private venture works.
    When trail centres started they weren't so much funded by the FC, as "reluctantly allowed".

    Times change and the Forestry Commission has done a lot of work to support the growth of mountain biking in the UK. Wales is different as you have a devolved Government so your woodland will still be FC owned.

    There are many forests in the UK that contain excellent tracks for mountain biking but are not purpose-built trail centres or recognised rights of way. It is these trails on FC managed land in the Lake District, and the rest of England, that is what we should be very concerned about.
    Well, I (and anybody else willing to admit it) ride on unmarked trails which are not supported in any way at all. Some of the very best trails are completely independent of F.C. support.
    Nothing will change.
    But seriously, this nonsense has come up over and over and over. Go and search for one of the many other threads on this rather than spewing the same bullcrap over and over again.
    The sky is not falling.
  • Thewaylander
    Thewaylander Posts: 8,594
    Its meerely currently a situation to be aware of, and to keep note of what locally to you is being bought and if it will ahve an impact.

    Most places will ahe no inpact at all, some will be positive some will be negative. the trick is to attackt he negative sales not all sales of this land because i bet for 90% of what is sold very little will change if anything at all.
  • welshkev
    welshkev Posts: 9,690
    the thing is that there are literally thousands of miles of trails that are no where near a forest and have nothing to do with the FC. just get out and find some and stop worrying about the forests :lol:

    before trail centres people just rode bikes, because it was (and still is) fun. end of :D
  • Thewaylander
    Thewaylander Posts: 8,594
    kev his concern isnt the trail cetners, but actual forest land which is public land which most of the trail network in the UK lives on is going, alot of these traills are not a natural right of way so any purchasing this land will not have to keep these trails and they can stop you going on them.

    But as i said wouldn't really make huge sense for many people to stop you entering.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Thewaylander wrote:
    But as i said wouldn't really make huge sense for many people to stop you entering.
    Must..... resist.... making.... joke.... about entering someone's scrubland

Categories