Forest sell-off

[Piers]

Well I think it would be more appropriate if you sold your house and assets then Jack; devote them to the treasury rather than advocating the sale of other peoples property and a nation's heritage. How insulting.

I can't believe I m even responding to this utter drivel...

[Jack Harrison]

Jack

[NickB]

Bit of real estate there that could also raise a few quid - Balmoral, Windsor, Buck House.
Jack

Nice one, Jack; get a joint-venture with Disney and we can have the Royal Disneyland Experience (hosted by the various Royals; there's enough to go round). Turn the palaces and grounds into 5-star hotels and theme parks, and the estates into wildlife havens...... We can then sell access to this countryside to the Proles we've just dispossessed in the forest sell-off, as a Royal Centre-Parks and then we'll be quids-in...
What do you reckon Jack? Will it be just you and me against Felix when the (middle-class republican) revolution comes

[NickB]

... and Tony Blair.

Jack's favourite politician!

[Jack Harrison]

The crux of the matter is who owns the Crown Jewels, Royal Palaces, etc. I honestly don’t know if it is the Nation (us) or the House of Windsor. If they are owned by the Nation, then nothing should be beyond consideration.

I have only seen the Crown Jewels once when I was a schoolboy. I joined in the “Ohs!” and “Ahs!” – that was what impressionable 12 year-olds did. But since then, the Crown Jewels have been of no interest to me whatsoever. But the forests have been. I don’t know the respective valuations of the Crown Jewels and the Forestry Commission but I am in little doubt which of the two I would happier to see turned into cash.

We could sell the England cricket team. As I wrote this, England are currently 20 for 2 so unfortunately wouldn't command a very high premium.

Jack

[Jack Harrison]

My latent anarchy isn’t new.

I grew up in Great Yarmouth. Although the town certainly had its problems, industrial pollution wasn’t one of them.

As a four or five year old, I visited London for the first time in my life. I think Dad must have been home on leave.

One of my favourites ditties at the time was “They’re changing guard at Buckingham Palace”
If you really want to cringe, listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_Z5LpHuXVE

So Buckingham Palace was a “must-see” during our visit to London. Industrial soot pollution had certainly hit the capital in a big way. When I first set eyes on the Palace, I exclaimed loudly in a shrill voice:
“Dad. It looks very dirty.”
“Sshh. You mustn’t say that.”

Jack

[Padfield]

The crux of the matter is who owns the Crown Jewels, Royal Palaces, etc.

The Crown owns the Crown Jewels and the Crown Estate. The Crown effectively embodies our nation's governance and power and thus is the ultimate guarantor of all property rights within the nation, including its own (until such time as we surrender sovereignty to faceless bureaucrats overseas).

The will of the Crown is expressed through parliament and enacted only with the assent of the reigning monarch. I would not expect Her Majesty the Queen to give her assent to the sale of the Crown Jewels! Nor would I expect the present government, at least, to provoke a constitutional crisis by asking her to do this. So I think the Crown Jewels are safe for the time being.

Guy

[JohnR]

The Crown owns the Crown Jewels and the Crown Estate. The Crown effectively embodies our nation's governance and power and thus is the ultimate guarantor of all property rights within the nation, including its own (until such time as we surrender sovereignty to faceless bureaucrats overseas).
Guy

It's at times like this that I would prefer to cut parliament out of the loop and be ruled directly by the crown. At least the House of Windsor is stuffed with conservationists.
Historically all land in this country is held of the crown.

[Rogerdodge]

As far as I can tell, there are two sites on the net to sign petitions to Save Our Forests.
http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/camp ... T.mc_id=fc
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save ... s#petition
It only takes a few seconds.
Every little helps.

I would like to see a statement from BC in the press.
In my experience, the press love Press Releases - it saves them having to write something themselves.............

[Pawpawsaurus]

As far as I can tell, there are two sites on the net to sign petitions to Save Our Forests.
http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/camp ... T.mc_id=fc
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save ... s#petition

Make that three:
http://saveenglandsforests.org/
I wonder which (if any) will be taken notice of.

Paul

[Jack Harrison]

I've signed all three.

Jack

[Piers]

But I heard an TV item that mentioned Rendlesham, Rockingham and Alice Holt as being on the government’s “for sale” short list. The latter two in particular are superb butterfly forests.
Jack

As an aside, this makes me laugh a little. It wasn't so long ago that the FC were persona non grata regarding thier treatment of Alice Holt and damage to the rides while extracting the 200 year old oaks for commercial timber. Re-reading the posts of the time one would be forgiven for thinking that a great deal of people would have welcomed less FC involvement in this particular woodland! How times change...

But anyway, Back on topic...

It has been broadly publicised that the FC currently owns around 18% of British woodland.

I am trying to establish the following stats:

What percentage of this FC woodland is commercial conifer plantation (i.e. of little conservation value).

What percentage of this FC woodland shall be classed as 'Heritage Woodland' and thus relatively safe (certainly no more threatened than it is today).

The reason I ask is that I am trying to come to an informed opinion and I can't seem to find these figures (and my time for trolling the tinterweb is limited). I am fed up with listening to a load of hype, hysteria, and hot air on the radio; and I couldn't care less about public access.

Thanks in advance...

Felix.

[Padfield]

That's very helpful Felix - thank you.

Commercial conifer plantations are not all without value (as I'm sure you are aware - I just thought it worth mentioning). When properly managed they are rich habitats. The conifer plantations of East Suffolk were the last stronghold of red squirrel in that part of the country (until 1987, I think, when the storms sealed their inevitable fate) and still have plenty of crossbills. When white admirals moved back into East Suffolk it was into these same conifer plantations - I saw my first local ones at Tunstall. And, of course, they house good populations of grayling.

Guy

[Piers]

That's very helpful Felix - thank you.

I haven't done anything

But, I am trying to calculate the percentage of woodland (particularly valuable habitat such as ancient woodland (including that which could be restored from existing conifer plantations where they were planted in areas of ancient woodland), wood pasture, coppice & standard, etc. which is at risk.

Once I have this figure I can subtract the % that will in all liklihood be acquired by conservation organisations and therefore no longer at risk (probably even better protected than under current FC stewardship).

Finally I shall have a figure which shall be the % of British woodland that is actually at risk. So far I have failed to establish this critical (for me in order to come to a conslusion) figure.

Listening to some people on the radio you would be forgiven for thinking that our entire woodland heritage is about to be sold to a certain large supermarket.

There are a lot of people who have expressed strong opinions on this thread, therefore it follows that these people will surely have the figures to hand and will be able to enlighten me. I must reiterate though, that while I appreciate that some have genuine concerns over public access this is of no concern to me. I just need the requested figures please.

Thanks in advance...

Felix.

[NickB]

Once I have this figure I can subtract the % that will in all liklihood be acquired by conservation organisations and therefore no longer at risk (probably even better protected than under current FC stewardship).

Felix.

If "no longer at risk" = potentially isolated in a sea of commercially minded non-environmentally managed woodlands, then I guess they will be "safe", for now! Of course, the government will employ a host of inspectors to ensure that environmental standards are met, won't it?

But as we all agree it is landscape-scale management that is the long-term solution, then if such fragmentation of sites and ownership takes place, everything is "at risk" again....that is my main concern and objection to the change in ownership.
N

[Jack Harrison]

Nick wondered:

Of course, the government will employ a host of inspectors to ensure that environmental standards are met, won't it?

And of course an army of Elf’n’Safety Inspectors will be needed to carry out a risk assessment before an overhanging branch is chopped off. Meanwhile a 401 will be posted on the access path.

Jack

[Piers]

But as we all agree it is landscape-scale management that is the long-term solution,

Agreed, but this is not provided by the FC currently, except in 'heritage woodlands' that shall be safe, we are lead to believe.

What I need to know is how much woodland/habitat shall be potentially lost under the scheme.

I have spoken to quite a number of people personally about this, and yet when I ask for the nitty gritty figures no one can quantify what it is that they are so conserned will be lost. This is beginning to bug me, as I am neutral regarding the principle, but could be swayed if I knew that vast tracts (of the 18%) would be lost or degrade environmentally. Bearing in mind that only a fraction of FC woodland is managed for anything other than commercial purposes anyway.

Jack: Your comment does not help my quest - as I said I have no concern for public access.

As I said; It has been broadly publicised that the FC currently owns around 18% of British woodland.

When you subtract the 'Heritage Woodland' from this, the commercial conifer plantations, and areas likely to come under the control or ownership of conservation groups; what percentage of British Woodland are we talking about? It could be a tiny fraction for all the information that I can find..!

Can anyone assist?

Many thanks,

Felix.

[Jack Harrison]

Felix has confused me by writing:

...and I couldn't care less about public access.

and later says:

Jack: Your comment does not help my quest - as I said I have no concern for public access.

So do you mean that you couldn't care less whether or not there is public access or do you mean that you are confident that public access will be retained?

And which of my comments isn't helpful in your quest? Sorry to be so dim.

Jack

[Piers]

Sorry Jack, I mean that I am not concerned whether or not public access could be lost, I just want some figures around what of the 18% of woodland that is under FC stewardship is actually at risk.

10%? 5%? or perhaps even less than 1% of British woodland...? From my own perspective I can't make a judgement until I have this information. As I said, the principle involved does not bother me, nor does the thought of less public access.

Many thanks if anyone can help. I assumed, since there was a considerable 'buzz' about the issue on the forum, that the statistics would be to hand...

Felix.

[NickB]

Lies, damn lies and then...statistics!
I'm not sure what use "1% of woodlands" or "5% of woodlands" would be to you, since it is not so much the area, but what it contains, that is important. It could be that 100% of our threatened species are contained in the 1% of woodlands at risk!