Sign the petition to our save the forests in the UK.

simonekarl

This Wednesday there is a crunch vote in Parliament. MPs will vote on a motion demanding a rethink of plans to sell our national forests. The fact this vote is happening shows that MPs have noticed our campaign. But we're not done yet.

On Wednesday morning, MPs will open the newspapers to see full-page adverts showing the number of people who’ve taken a stand by signing the Save Our Forests petition. The more of us that sign the petition the more pressure MPs will be under.

Right now, the petition is nearly 330,000 strong, and every name counts. So we’re setting a bold new target of half a million people by 5pm on Tuesday in time for the ad printing deadline and Wednesday’s hugely important vote. Will you take a moment to spread the word right now?

Please forward this email and share this link:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/save-our-forests

jayson

Signed it some time ago myself but we need to get more people involved so come one come all.

hoochylala

Already done when this first came about - fingers crossed though eh :?

andyrm

I'm not fully convinced by the "privatisation will ruin our forests" argument. UPM Tilhill have proved that they can run a sustainable and profitable outdoor facility for MTBers, walkers and more at Llandegla.

http://www.upm-tilhill.com/NetsiteCMS/p ... Press.html

Northwind

I say this every time but... Llandegla's been a subsidy/grant magnet, it's been built and maintained largely (I think mostly but not 100%) with public funds. However UPM take home an operating profit on their smaller investment while the public money is a one way flow. If the same amount of public money had been invested on an FC facility you'd have most of the trails and the profit would go back to the estate instead of into shareholders' pockets.

Also UPM run something like 3 times as much forestry as the FC but only one trail centre and have no plans to build more- they also won't expand Llandegla without it being public funded.

So all in all it's a pretty good example of what we can expect from private forestry I reckon- taxpayer pays, they profit, we end up worse off than if the money had gone to a FC facility.

Drumlanrig's a more positive example of riding on private land, though. Not to mention one of the best places to ride in the country. But as far as I know it's in a minority of one.

kevcampbell

what happens if forests are sold, does that mean they can be deforested?

if so i am all for it

only joking, but what would it mean if they were sold? whatever it means it does not sound good, i love to ride over forests, it is one of many great ways to experience nature, so i will sign the petition

if this goes through though i would hope all hell breaks loose, like it did with the student protests but 10 times worse, but lets just hope our forests never get sold, otherwise there will be nothing left to see in this country that is a pleasure to look at and be a part of

Northwind

kevcampbell wrote:

what happens if forests are sold, does that mean they can be deforested?

No but the new owners (or leaseholders) will be able to claim grants and handouts in order to reforest after felling, which is total genius, we don't get the profit but we get to pay for the planting.

They'll also be able to claim grants in order to preserve access so again we get to pay for what we already have (footpath access is protected under the terms of the proposals; cyclist access is not)

Private Eye found a brilliant example were a private operator bought a mature forest for £60 million, clearfelled it, then received £55 million to reseed it- one year after the sale! Utter madness.

Anonymous

Northwind wrote:

Also UPM run something like 3 times as much forestry as the FC but only one trail centre and have no plans to build more

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. UPM are not responsible for the trails. Oneplanet adventure is. UPM just own the forest.

Northwind

Yes, you seemed to think that made a difference last time too but never did come back and say why.

Anonymous

I can't even remember the conversation, there's too many of this same topic going round, but still YOU seem adamant that UPM run Llandegla.

Northwind

UPM own the land, commissioned and maintain the trails, and gathered the funding; UPM's tenant One Planet run the shop, the cafe, and skills courses. One Planet don't run Llandegla, they just run the shops, just like the Hub doesn't run Glentress.

Or so each company says. Know better?

ilovedirt

yeehaamcgee wrote:

I can't even remember the conversation, there's too many of this same topic going round, but still YOU seem adamant that UPM run Llandegla.

Still, it doesn't negate the point that was being made - privately owned forest land is not necessarily a bad thing. However, i'd prefer it was still owned by the forestry commission. I don't see what they have to gain by selling it.

stumpyjon

ilovedirt wrote:

I don't see what they have to gain by selling it.

And that's another good reason not to sell it off. It's going to cost more to sell than to maintain the current minimal subsidy. Add in to that we have no idea how privatisation will actually work save for the fact it won't be anywhere near as rosy as Cameron is trying to paint it.

Even if the charities take on great chunks I don't see either the National or Woodland Trusts being particularly sensitive mountain bikers desires.

Personally I think there are many more important issues with more benficial outcomes for parlimentary time to be spent on.

Anonymous

Northwind wrote:

UPM own the land, commissioned and maintain the trails, and gathered the funding; UPM's tenant One Planet run the shop, the cafe, and skills courses. One Planet don't run Llandegla, they just run the shops, just like the Hub doesn't run Glentress.

Or so each company says. Know better?

Well, since UPM keep threatening to kick OPA out if they don't make sure that people park in the actual car park, I don't get the impression that UPM are running things, they're just allowing the use of their land.

I have a particular gripe with the FC because of their rather nasty tactics in the past, when they realised that this whole trail centre was a good thing, and that THEY should be in charge.

Chrisdawg

One Planet have a profit share agreement with UPM, so Tilhill do have a vested interest in the sites success. Tilhill are also looking at a site near Gisburn, but again that depends on FC grant money. No money = no trails.

God help us all if the woodland trust get inolved, they dont (know how too) manage their woods at the best of times.

Sheffield wildlife trust are keen on mtb access in Grenside, thanks to some forward thinking and positive leadership and may be keen to re-invest in the woodland infrastructure, then again they have not got shareholders champing at the bit for a slice of the cake.

Trouble is that most of the woods will go either to investors who want to harvest and replant and who will only pay lip service to any access agreements or to single interest groups who are totally focused on biodiversity and who will not want the butterflies or beetles disturbed. And then there is the Big society which will I imagine be a nightmare, after all who will take on and pay for the insurance liability for a bunch of people hurtling around on bikes. Would you?

What the FC does well is manage for multiple benefits. Act now before it is too late

Northwind

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Well, since UPM keep threatening to kick OPA out if they don't make sure that people park in the actual car park, I don't get the impression that UPM are running things, they're just allowing the use of their land.

Oneplanet are running the visitor's centre; from what you say presumably they're responsible for parking as well. What does this tell you about who runs the trails?

Seriously, if you just go and read what Oneplanet and UPM have to say on the subject it's pretty obvious who's in charge of what. Funny though, previous times you came out with this I actually just assumed you were right, but this time I went and looked it up

Anonymous

Northwind wrote:

Oneplanet are running the visitor's centre; from what you say presumably they're responsible for parking as well. What does this tell you about who runs the trails?

Not a lot. But the general attitude there is that UPM aren't particularly fussed about the mountain biking side of things.

Northwind

Except for building and maintaining the trails anyway.

Northwind

This was interesting... In Prime Minister's Question Time it was shown that the government's own figures prove this is not a money-maker. DEFRA's survey concludes that the total revenue from the sales and leases will be £655 million pounds. But over the next 20 years alone the cost to the taxpayer of the sale is expected to be £679. As the leases proposed are for 150 years and the sales will be permanent, that's only going to get worse in future.

Also it was pointed out that the proposal states that any charity taking on land will be expected over time to "become less dependant on state support" whereas there is no such expectation for privately operated forestry, whose ability to claim state support has been guaranteed.

Sounds better and better.

Anonymous

Read in the paper today that the Welsh governent is preventing the selling off of forests, basically.
They want the FC in charge, but with the possibility of allowing occasional 3rd party control of some areas, to make use of the land.
But it seems they are hardcore in their support for recreational use.