Lake District forest campaign
Comments
-
DOooooooooooooooooooooooo it0
-
Thewaylander wrote: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.
ah ok, i really should have read the link then
0 -
[quote="yeehaamcgeeWell, 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.[/quote]
Perhaps if this subject keeps reappearing then it is because people recognise its importance to our sport.
Some, actually most, of the best trails are bridleways out on the open fells. However many good trails do lie within FC managed land. This happens to be very important to a lot of people, bikers and otherwise, so for you to dismiss it as 'bullcrap' seems somewhat unfair.0 -
No, it keeps reappearing because of knee-jerk reactions.Scottsparkrider wrote:Perhaps if this subject keeps reappearing then it is because people recognise its importance to our sport.
Some, actually most, of the best trails are bridleways out on the open fells. However many good trails do lie within FC managed land. This happens to be very important to a lot of people, bikers and otherwise, so for you to dismiss it as 'bullcrap' seems somewhat unfair.
There are several recurring themes here, that doesn't make any of them valid.
Take TheWaylander's side on this. No need to increase your blood pressure over something that is likely to have little or no impact.0 -
I don't know how you can predict that it will have little impact if the early evidence is that private landowners have restricted access after purchasing forest land.
Trail centres will probably be unaffected as they are viable commercial concerns. But not all mountain bikers would like to see biking access restricted to these corrals.
I have ridden Llandegla many times during the past five years and believe it has become a victim of its own success. I refuse to go there at a weekend now as it is far too over-populated with riders.
I have been riding for around 20 years and trail centres are a relatively recent trend. We need to maintain our traditional access rights on the other forest trails. And there is a very real risk that these rights could be threatened by Forestry Commission sell-offs.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:No, it is not. Llandegla is a shining example of how a private venture works.
Turn that one on its head- UPM owns or manages 200,000 hectares of forest across the whole UK, how many trail centres do they run? FC manages 250000 acres of forest in England, how many trail centres do they run? Not so rosy when looked at that way round.Uncompromising extremist0 -
If you really care about open access to any forest, then you're fighting the wrong enemy.Scottsparkrider wrote:I have been riding for around 20 years and trail centres are a relatively recent trend. We need to maintain our traditional access rights on the other forest trails. And there is a very real risk that these rights could be threatened by Forestry Commission sell-offs.
The sell off is not the issue you should be worried about, it's the access laws, fight to get us included in the "right to roam".0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:If you really care about open access to any forest, then you're fighting the wrong enemy.
The sell off is not the issue you should be worried about, it's the access laws, fight to get us included in the "right to roam".
Both are issues to the sport. I would love to see increased access rights granted to mountain bikers. I think there is a strong case for many footpaths to be upgraded to bridleways. However the Forestry sell-off is a more pressing issue for mountain biking. This would see a real contraction in the land that we have access to. We should defend what we have before seeking additional access.0 -
I'll sign off on this in a similar way that I did on the other threads.
When you are found to be worrying about nothing, I will personally follow you around banging a drum and calling you a mong.
For the rest of your life.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
None.Northwind wrote:UPM owns or manages 200,000 hectares of forest across the whole UK, how many trail centres do they run?
Oh very clever. How many trail centres are on land that they manage or own, then? It's one more as far as I can tell, which is an awful lot less than the FC.Uncompromising extremist0 -
0
-
0
-
Crikey there are some Trogladites on here, trees on slopes not growing properly, private sector can do it better yady yah. Be very careful for what you wish!!
The FC estate belongs to the people, is managed for the people and should be accessible for the people either on foot, bike or horse. FC has it's hands tied behind its back so cannot compete with the private sector on some issues. PAWS restoration cost shed loads; govt target, open habitats cost shed loads; govt target, public access costs shed loads; govt targets, biodiversity work; govt targets. There is a theme there somewhere!
Private sector forestry is a dead duck in the water without FC grants, UPM Tilhill could not have done llandegla without FC grant support and still gets FC money to manage the access. There is a reason why there are not many trail centres in private woodlands, cos they are bloody expensive to build and maintain. Yes there is plenty of natural stuff to enjoy but these trail centres are fun and a good and safe place for individuals and families to learn how to ride in a controlled (relatively speaking) environment, they provide employment (too right that Purple Mountain are worried), are world class (Fort Bill and Dalby).
The bottom line is that some access is secure (foot) but any woodland that is leasehold has no acces security which means that 'Private keep out' signs can go up, and that will spoil your riding wont it !0 -
I live a couple of miles from Grizedale and ride there a lot, I don't use the North Face trail (because its gash) but I do ride a lot of other parts of the forest and the neighbouring Graythwaite wood. I also ride Whinlatter quite a bit because its what I think a trail centre should be. Anyways why would the FC sell off forests that are making them money, sure they lose money across the UK but they own a lot of woodland that brings them no or very little income. If Whinlatter and Grizedale are such great tourist attractions bringing in revenue then why would they sell them? The FC aren't selling off ALL forests, its not mandatory. On the other hand if they did sell them to a commercial enterprise why would the buyers stop mountain biking on an already existing trail centre that brings in revenue, easier to rent out the cafe and the bike shop and continue filling the till. Graythwaite wood is privately owned but has bridleways running through it. No one tries to stop me riding there, (building stuff is a little different), I'm on a legal BW so what can they do anyway?
One thing I do know is that you def cannot trust the "Friends of the Lake District". They were instrumental in stopping Waterskiing and Wakeboarding on Lake Windermere which cost the local economy millions every year with no regard for anyone. If it was up to them they would stop all access to everyone, walkers, bikes etc. If forests were privately owned they would lose any say over what happens there which is why they are interested, but do not assume that they will stick up for MTB because they won't, they hate us with a passion because we erode trails. Whatever is gonna happen will happen and thankfully the Lake District is massive and outside of the forests you can basically ride anywhere within reason, nobody will stop you. I just can't see why anyone would shut an existing trail centre or how they can stop you riding a legal bridleway. Just a local opinion feel free to flame...0 -
FC? Lets hope they aren't as anti development as the FC Scotland were......
http://www.carronvalley.org.uk/timeline/index.shtmlDartmoor Primal 26" 1 x 10, 40 expander
Banshee Spitfire 650b 1 x 10, 42 expander0 -
Yeah, because there's no good riding in scotland on FC land
Remember at the same time that the FC were going into their spiral of madness over CV they were building the 7 stanes, among plenty of others. It was a total farce but you can't pretend it's representative.Uncompromising extremist0 -
pat mcgucken wrote:I live a couple of miles from Grizedale and ride there a lot, I don't use the North Face trail (because its gash) but I do ride a lot of other parts of the forest and the neighbouring Graythwaite wood. I also ride Whinlatter quite a bit because its what I think a trail centre should be. Anyways why would the FC sell off forests that are making them money, sure they lose money across the UK but they own a lot of woodland that brings them no or very little income. If Whinlatter and Grizedale are such great tourist attractions bringing in revenue then why would they sell them? The FC aren't selling off ALL forests, its not mandatory. On the other hand if they did sell them to a commercial enterprise why would the buyers stop mountain biking on an already existing trail centre that brings in revenue, easier to rent out the cafe and the bike shop and continue filling the till. Graythwaite wood is privately owned but has bridleways running through it. No one tries to stop me riding there, (building stuff is a little different), I'm on a legal BW so what can they do anyway?
One thing I do know is that you def cannot trust the "Friends of the Lake District". They were instrumental in stopping Waterskiing and Wakeboarding on Lake Windermere which cost the local economy millions every year with no regard for anyone. If it was up to them they would stop all access to everyone, walkers, bikes etc. If forests were privately owned they would lose any say over what happens there which is why they are interested, but do not assume that they will stick up for MTB because they won't, they hate us with a passion because we erode trails. Whatever is gonna happen will happen and thankfully the Lake District is massive and outside of the forests you can basically ride anywhere within reason, nobody will stop you. I just can't see why anyone would shut an existing trail centre or how they can stop you riding a legal bridleway. Just a local opinion feel free to flame...
I agree that existing trail centres and bridleways will be largely unaffected, however there are other trails within FC managed estate that are excellent for mountain biking and do not fit within those parameters.
It seems that the public purse will be no better off and it may just create a tax loophole for the wealthy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... x-revenues0 -
Story in today's Sunday Times mentions Rigg Wood and Save Lakeland's Forests. Also gives example of mountain bikers who have found they are no longer able to ride in Westwood near Hereford since it was sold into private ownership last year.0
-
Interesting point made in this new news story that less-abled people will find it near impossible to access fenced-off forest land as there is no compulsion for owners even to put in gates or stiles for walkers.
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/community ... Path=news/0 -
agree wholeheartedly with this post, visitors to the lakes are in the main fine with MTB'ers but locals generaly hate us, i've been threatened twice by tennant farmers on national trust land, last year had the same problems with locals telling us we couldn't ride on bridlepaths, you try and be polite and explain and you jus tget abusepat mcgucken wrote:I live a couple of miles from Grizedale and ride there a lot, I don't use the North Face trail (because its gash) but I do ride a lot of other parts of the forest and the neighbouring Graythwaite wood. I also ride Whinlatter quite a bit because its what I think a trail centre should be. Anyways why would the FC sell off forests that are making them money, sure they lose money across the UK but they own a lot of woodland that brings them no or very little income. If Whinlatter and Grizedale are such great tourist attractions bringing in revenue then why would they sell them? The FC aren't selling off ALL forests, its not mandatory. On the other hand if they did sell them to a commercial enterprise why would the buyers stop mountain biking on an already existing trail centre that brings in revenue, easier to rent out the cafe and the bike shop and continue filling the till. Graythwaite wood is privately owned but has bridleways running through it. No one tries to stop me riding there, (building stuff is a little different), I'm on a legal BW so what can they do anyway?
One thing I do know is that you def cannot trust the "Friends of the Lake District". They were instrumental in stopping Waterskiing and Wakeboarding on Lake Windermere which cost the local economy millions every year with no regard for anyone. If it was up to them they would stop all access to everyone, walkers, bikes etc. If forests were privately owned they would lose any say over what happens there which is why they are interested, but do not assume that they will stick up for MTB because they won't, they hate us with a passion because we erode trails. Whatever is gonna happen will happen and thankfully the Lake District is massive and outside of the forests you can basically ride anywhere within reason, nobody will stop you. I just can't see why anyone would shut an existing trail centre or how they can stop you riding a legal bridleway. Just a local opinion feel free to flame...All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
The situation is excellently summed up by the Guardian's environmental correspondant in this blog where he says groups like bikers must wake up to this issue!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... sh-forests0 -
Scottsparkrider wrote:what are essentially wildlife habitat
not as much as you might think....
These managed forests are essentially tree farms. Every 10-15 years, a given section is harvested, then replanted, totally destroying any habitat that had built up in the previous 10-15 years for anything other than insects. The diversity of wildlife is nowhere near the level of that in a natural forest, just as the level of diversity in plantlife is nowhere near the level of that in a natural forest.
The image of a forest full of red squirells and pole cats is a falacy.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
Do we even have pole cats in this country? I always thought they were some strange American creature that lived on the plains
Most of the big pice forests aren't natural either, and the pine trees actually destroy the ecosystem of native plant life0 -
Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
The FC is increasingly replanting conifer with broadleaf species as the organisation has developed a more conservation focused approach to forestry.
The FC does copicing work that creates habitat for range of species including endangered butterfly.
If woodland passes to private hand it is more likely that these approaches will be reversed.
A few more pointers
http://rohantime.com/14701/save-lakelands-forests/0 -
m1tch666 wrote:FC? Lets hope they aren't as anti development as the FC Scotland were......
http://www.carronvalley.org.uk/timeline/index.shtml
I thought there was decent, maintained trails at Carron Valley. I have seen the site but can't help thinking that this is a little one sided. The FC are great supporters of Mountain Biking as can be seen from the 7Stanes, and other trails. I have no wish to try and delve into the problems at Carron Valley, or why they hit the wall, but I am sure there is far more than meets the eye.
CV has a few good trails, but terrible access roads. It just is not geared up to be another Glentress."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:m1tch666 wrote:FC? Lets hope they aren't as anti development as the FC Scotland were......
http://www.carronvalley.org.uk/timeline/index.shtml
I thought there was decent, maintained trails at Carron Valley. I have seen the site but can't help thinking that this is a little one sided. The FC are great supporters of Mountain Biking as can be seen from the 7Stanes, and other trails. I have no wish to try and delve into the problems at Carron Valley, or why they hit the wall, but I am sure there is far more than meets the eye.
CV has a few good trails, but terrible access roads. It just is not geared up to be another Glentress.
I know a couple of the guys from the disbanded CV project.
while the project failed (basically the trail centre and funding was in conflict with the FC National MTB Strategy, which it seems wanted to concentrate their efforts on the 7Stanes..the next year Glentress got a several million pound funding grant...)....it did have some real successes (and in fairness to the FC, despite the later issues, this was in partnership with the FC).
There are indeed purpose built trails at Carron Valley, which the FC have undertaken to maintain. I know that at least some maintenance/trail changes have happened since the CVDG disbanded, so presume the FC have taken part in that.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
Scottsparkrider wrote:The FC is increasingly replanting conifer with broadleaf species as the organisation has developed a more conservation focused approach to forestry.
The FC does copicing work that creates habitat for range of species including endangered butterfly.
If woodland passes to private hand it is more likely that these approaches will be reversed.
A few more pointers
http://rohantime.com/14701/save-lakelands-forests/
true...however, broadleaf species are slow growing in comparison to conifer, so clearly that takes time...20 plus years for any real habitat creation...its a long game the old tree business
However, any business needs to create product if it is to survive. The tree business is no different and the balance of conifer to broadleaf will always have to be more geared towards the cash crop.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
sorry just want to clear something up that "Bianchimoon" said about what I wrote.
At no point did I say that the locals were abusive to mountain bikers or didn't want them there. I am obviously local and can say that riding in the lakes probably 4 days a week I have never had any abuse from anybody local, I have once had an old bloke wave his stick at me but I was on a footpath so I can't really count that to be honest in my experience holiday makers walking in the hills are the only people who ever have a problem with me on my bike.
I think the locals in general respect anyone who respects the area and doesn't drop litter or gob off at them when they're walking their dog. Anyway like I say just correcting what I assume was a misinterpretation.0
