Lake District forest campaign
Comments
-
Friends of the Lake District are joining the national campaign to stop the sell off of the Forestry Commission land. Contrary to what is said below the Government are forcing a 15% sell off now, which could mean 30-40% of the woodlands in the Lake District National Park are sold. A 'Public Bodies Bill' is going through Parliment at the moment to allow the Government to force the sell off of ALL of FC's land. This will have a devastating impact of the current levels of free access for mountain biking, particularly in popular locations like the Lake District.
- We are 100% behind responsible mountain biking, because its non-motorised enjoyment of the Lake District (unlike jet skis and recreational 4x4 drivers). Staff members also mountain bike as do many of our members in Cumbria.
- Over the last 20 years the Friend's have invested £100,000s of our own money into bridleway maintenance and improving all forms of public access to benefit cyclists, horse riders and walkers.
- Bottom-line is that selling off of the Forest Commission land will remove a massive amount of free access for mountain bikers on forest tracks... so get on your bike and join the campaign! See our website: www.fld.org.uk
Thanks for your support....
Jack Ellerby
Policy Officer, Friends of the Lake Districtpat 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...0 -
0
-
The bottom line is that it's not ours to sell, the arrogance of it defies belief.
How the Fcuk did we come to the conclusion that 's its OK to sell off bits of the country?
We are trustees!
If this goes ahead we will have sold off our childrens and their childrens childrens inheritance in order to make a quick buck.
The argument should not be about access rights, it should be about whether we, from a moral point of view, have the right to sell off the land in first place.
Its a disgrace we're even considering it.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.
Indeed, but have recent events at Glentress now shown their true colours...? The trails there originally cost just over £1/2m to make and now maintain, there is a release of funding of £9m for the new visitor centre, the bid from current hub cafe to move into the new visitor centre and renew their lease failed, basically meaning the people who helped drive and make it what it is no longer have a business. What investment into new trails you ask....??? None. So we'll influx so many more visitors to the current trails, overload them, spend nothing on them and wonder why the mountain bikers slowly disappear but we'll spend £9m to help make profits from them......it just doesn't make sense....??
As for CV, it's another place that could have easily been developed, to offer another Glentress type centre, which obviously makes good money for the local area and FC, since their ploughing so much more money into everything there......oh, except the thing that actually brings the bikers.....Dartmoor Primal 26" 1 x 10, 40 expander
Banshee Spitfire 650b 1 x 10, 42 expander0 -
There is always ongoing investment at Glentress, and at the other Stanes, don't pretend otherwise... On the diary for Glentress alone this year is the new Ewok Village, and a replacement for Lombard Street (because it's rubbish). Not to mention the constant ongoing maintenance- Spooky Wood just got a huge refurb, the trailfairies rebuilt the ropey bit in Magic Mushroom which was a huge project, the black on Falla Brae got its extension/reroute, more blue route, Zoom or Bust was completed last year... We'd all like to see more trails but it's not like the trail network is forgotten or being left to fall apart.
(but I agree the visitor's centre spend is a total joke, ah well)Uncompromising extremist0 -
Sounds a bit like cwm carn, We used to have a pretty good portakabin then they spent a fortune on the center and no one uses it lol0
-
The Wainwright Society have now backed the campaign to save the Lake District's forests. They also say that mountain bikers would have access rights severly restricted.
http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2011/0 ... d-old-days
Does anyone know of any mountain biking pressure groups that would campaign or lobby on our behalf on matters such as this?0 -
This is not really about defecit reduction it is idealogcally driven by a political elite that detests state control over that which it has limited control, and I use that term very loosely, to privatise an organisation that they have failed to sell off in the past. A recent FOI request showed that a woodland that had been disposed of attracted more grant aid than it was sold for good economic sense? you tell me.
Spelman and her cronies dont really give two hoots about public access that is generally free at the forest gate in all but a few instances.
The FC cant really win, they grow conifers; that pisses people off, they cut them down; that pisses people off, they try to make a profit; thats not fair to private owners, pisses people off, they loose money etc, get my drift.
Whatever type of riding you do I would suspect that most have used an FC site at some time or other, if this disposal is allowed to happen it will materially affect free access for all, because once it is gone private owners can then charge what they like because there will be no free (cheap) alternative. Then they will start asking for grants like the £815,000 that FC pumped into Llandegla, so we all end up paying through our taxes anyway. With all that extra woodland in the private sector the grant budgets will have to increase massively, cos why should the poor rich land owner have to pay for the peasants to be allowed into his woodland i.e cough up or I'll stop any access.0 -
Are you sure it's the FC that's given money to Llandegla recently?
Because in the same wave of "investment", several places received funding which have no forestry at all - makes me wonder if it was the FC.
I seem to recall something along th elines of the Welsh sporting council, or somesuch making investments.0 -
Isnt the law different in Scotland wrt mountian bike access - also are they considering selling off land in wales & scotland also or is it restricted to england only?
I agree private investment could improve things but i would guess this will be in a limited number of cases. Overall in all probability selling off the land will degrade services.
Yes there is Llandegla and i've ridden it many times but i do recall a scare a couple of years ago about it shutting down.. plain and simple if it's private and not making money it goes under.. not so for FC supported projects.
I'm not sure why these things should make profit anyway.. they are technically paid for by all and available for use by all and benifit those who use them.
I'm local to Whinlatter and it's teeming with MTB, Walkers, Childrens groups on nature walks etc.. if it costs money and make little/no profit .. so what?
Some greedy MP's probably have some "interests" in the sales
Never had any trouble from walkers riding in the lakes except one bloke from London who said something to me.. once i spoke to him in my stong local accent he shut up.0 -
well in Llandegla's case, any profit they make goes into trail improvements, and keeping them running when they have to close due to extreme weather conditions. They have staff to pay, you can;t just fu** them off for a month whilst you're under several feet of snow.Rocketmagnet wrote:I'm not sure why these things should make profit anyway.. they are technically paid for by all and available for use by all and benifit those who use them.
I'm local to Whinlatter and it's teeming with MTB, Walkers, Childrens groups on nature walks etc.. if it costs money and make little/no profit .. so what?0 -
Rocketmagnet wrote:I'm not sure why these things should make profit anyway.. they are technically paid for by all and available for use by all and benifit those who use them.
The individual businesses like bike shops, cafes etc need to be able to make a profit as they're providing a service. The FC facilities usually run on a not-for-profit basis, rents and leases go into maintaining the estate and all parking revenues at the mountain biking locations go direct to the trails. Which is why everyone not paying the miserable £3 parking fee is a TOTAL C**T (1)
(1) Except me but I'm allowed.Uncompromising extremist0 -
Apparently the forest sales story is to be featured on Newsnight tonight - should make interesting viewing.0
-
I'm just wondering why bike manufactureres and retailers are not up in arms, there is a massive amount of bikes sales that are only used on purpose built trails, no trails, no sales..
Bedgebury in Kent, the most profitable FC site in the uk, is apparently on the list to be sold, perhaps to centre parks.. anyone go cycling in any of there other sites without having to stay or pay?0 -
Excellent story on the Forest sales in Private Eye
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.p ... issue=12800 -
0
-
By profit i clearly dont mean Cafe services / bike shops etc.
I'm just saying that the money that goes into the land is money well spent.
I dont think it should generate excess profit that goes ino someone pocket
but is forced to be reinvested. If it's private then the whole idea is someone
makes money out of it.. yeah you'll get the exception... but you'll also get
sales that the new owner has no interest other than land grabbing -- then applying for grants :roll:
As for those greedy gits that dont pay for parking.. well it's an utter disgrace the number
of BMW's and expensive 4X4's you see littering the "free" area just outside whinlatters
main car park when there are plenty of spaces. You see them taking out their 3K+ bikes
but they wont pay £3 for the trails upkeep or £30 for a full years pass.
Yeah park outside at night or late on because they close the gate but i'v seen the car park
deserted on a wet sunday morning and still the free area is full of "£$%s.0 -
Loads of media coverage on this issue today - Sunday Telegraph's main story. Also Sky and BBC running features on it. - This is massive for the future of mountain biking in England.0
-
Bikers urged to join ralley on Sunday - anyone going?
http://rohantime.com/14911/mountain-bik ... e-forests/0 -
Hmmmm lets put this into perspective.
Say you bought a house lived in it for a while caused no harm to anyone. Then suddenly a group of green people went snooping round your land and found a rare species of a certain animal (in this case a trail). How would you fill if they just knocked down your house to protect the little species even though they could be moved elsewhere?
If people buy the land it is up to them what they do with it, if you moan about it build a trail through your own garden and let everyone else ride it.
You could always go bike through previously public land and if they ask just say your (old) map states that its a right of way (Make sure you've gone over it in a green pen tehe).
If you want more trails help existing ones flourish, private owners will catch onto this and will buy up the land and turn them into trails.
Don't harass these owners otherwise they won't do anything, they will feel bullied and will hate cyclists. (lol kinda contradicted the above status about trespassing).
phew0 -
What an incredibly wrong metaphor
Uncompromising extremist0 -
yep lol, but it is their property, you wouldn't want someone just coming into your garden saying that it once was owned by the flowers and trees and the birds and the bees so i should be able to ride through it, lol silly rhyming thereNorthwind wrote:What an incredibly wrong metaphor0 -
It's not their property. That's kind of the point. It's ours.Uncompromising extremist0
-
I suppose what they will say is that the country (us) need the money so the government (on our behalf) are selling our woodland to raise that money. Its kind of like if you had an empty field owned by the whole street and one person kept a goat in it and the whole street was skint they would be daft not to sell the field so that the street could feed their children. Unfortunately that is a bit sh*t for the bloke with the goat, but I suppose they would just tell him to keep his goat somewhere else.0
-
Except that the amount of money to be made from the sale is trivial in the grand scheme of things, and the long term costs are unlikely to fall (as the new landowners will be entitled to grants and subsidies- this has already been well demonstrated in previous sales). The financial case for the sale is very poor.
The Private Eye story gives a perfect example- sell a patch of land for £60 million, pay out £55 million in grants. Now fair enough it's the Eye so not exactly impartial but if you've not read it already, it's worth a look. Sometimes what you need is a really jaundiced cynical eye
Uncompromising extremist0 -
slightly away from the recent flow of coonversation. I would have absolutely no problem with a percentage of the country's forest/national parks, greenery whatever being sold off.......so long as there were very carefully worded terms and conditions to the ownership and future use of such land. Like has been mentioned, the usage of the land at Llandegla is fantastic, its always busy, there is good facilities and it encourages people in
Could the privatisation say of the forestry commission work? I'm not saying yes what a great idea, just do you think it could? If it were sold off but with conditions could it turn a profit through things like car parking, on site facilities and things like the seemingly very succesful go ape? Could giving ownership of the land open it up to more people through creative usage of the space, more purpose built trails through private investment for example, and more things such as segway rallying?
Just food for thought, I'm dead against land being sold off and closed off, but land sold off to bidders with vision and the willingness to invest could be a good thing0 -
Don't get me wrong I'm not particularly disagreeing, mainly 'cos I don't want to keep my goat somewhere else. I'm just saying thats what "They" will say. Anyway you live in Scotland, I thought they were keeping their forests up there? Your biggest problem is gonna be a whole load of English mountainbikers moving next door to you... 8)0
-
Gazlar wrote:slightly away from the recent flow of coonversation. I would have absolutely no problem with a percentage of the country's forest/national parks, greenery whatever being sold off.......so long as there were very carefully worded terms and conditions to the ownership and future use of such land. Like has been mentioned, the usage of the land at Llandegla is fantastic, its always busy, there is good facilities and it encourages people in
Llandegla's a great example but not for the reasons people think- it's privately owned but largely publically funded. 40% of the initial capital came from the FC alone and they get funding from other sources too.
And sure, it's an example of cycling on private land and that seems rosy but as I said earlier in the thread, UPM Tilhill run more forestry land than the FC and there's exactly one trail centre on their land that I know of, that's not encouraging at all really.Uncompromising extremist0 -
Northwind wrote:Gazlar wrote:slightly away from the recent flow of coonversation. I would have absolutely no problem with a percentage of the country's forest/national parks, greenery whatever being sold off.......so long as there were very carefully worded terms and conditions to the ownership and future use of such land. Like has been mentioned, the usage of the land at Llandegla is fantastic, its always busy, there is good facilities and it encourages people in
Llandegla's a great example but not for the reasons people think- it's privately owned but largely publically funded. 40% of the initial capital came from the FC alone and they get funding from other sources too.
And sure, it's an example of cycling on private land and that seems rosy but as I said earlier in the thread, UPM Tilhill run more forestry land than the FC and there's exactly one trail centre on their land that I know of, that's not encouraging at all really.
Thats a fair point, but what if the land was offered up for sale with the condition that there was no forestry apart from maintainance forestry to be allowed? The land may not sell sure but then were in the position we are in now. What I meanis do you think that it would be a profitable business venture long term to sell the land under the condition it was used to provide public leisure facility? I know its an idealistic notion but just wondered?0 -
To be fair though, the last time they opened one of their forests up for public access, a UFO crash landed.Northwind wrote:UPM Tilhill run more forestry land than the FC and there's exactly one trail centre on their land that I know of
Now, you don't want that kind of thing happening day in, day out 0
