www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Charles Nicol wrote:

Matsukaze wrote:Hi John,

The Gypsy Moth is already here, in parts of London and in Aylesbury I think, an inadvertent import.

Surely this should be referred to as The Travelling Community Moth ...

Charles

And therefore the Forestry Commission shouldn't be discriminating against it ..... I trust that The Equal Opportunities Commission will take this up with the FC

...The Travelling Community Moth ...

But surely it will be in the good hands of The Big Yawn? (Freudian slip there - correction Society).

Jack

I don't trust this government, once they change the law they can do whatever they want, all this in the name of benefit!!
This selling off will represent only a tiny percentage of what the government needs to cover the debt anyway. For me, this does not make sense at all.
There is a already a very strong public protest against this sell off plan and if you are against the government's project then you can sign the following petition:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/save-our-forests
They have already obtained around 500 000 signatures and the more they will get, the better it will be for the future of our forests.
Please add your signature!
Sylvie

Sylvie_h wrote:if you are against the government's project then you can sign the following petition:

Then what, Isn't it obvious that this government, and any future government, will just simply revert back to the 15% a year back door sales with no protective legislation in place.

Regards Gruditch

Taken with other measures, such as a Community Bank (which will lend money to Charities on a commercial basis) and the cut in funding to Councils who are the main bodies by which many charities get funds, it is becoming clear that, far from being safeguarded, much of the transfer of assets to the Big Society, such as the FC sell-off, is actually a con-trick, since it is the running of these assets which contains the greatest cost.
So charities and local groups will have all the responsibilities and none of the cash to fulfil them, unless they want to borrow money and take on the interest payments as well!
(Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?)

Gruditch wrote:

Sylvie_h wrote:if you are against the government's project then you can sign the following petition:

Then what, Isn't it obvious that this government, and any future government, will just simply revert back to the 15% a year back door sales with no protective legislation in place.

Regards Gruditch

In the past the Forestry Commission have been allowed to buy and sell land as a commercial enterprise. If they are forced into a position where they have to sell all the land (or grant long leases on it) then the market will be swamped and the price will fall. Something like this happened when the last government sold our gold reserves.
Charitable trusts who buy the heritage woodland will need money to do so ---- from the government? And who is going to run these woods? I have done enough forestry in my time to know that I know almost nothing about forest management.

NickB wrote:transfer of assets to the Big Society, such as the FC sell-off, is actually a con-trick

I don't for one second believe that the government in conducting this proposed sell, has a single thought for conservation. But that doesn't mean that this may not end up being in the best interest of our remaining woodland.

JohnR wrote:In the past the Forestry Commission have been allowed to buy and sell land as a commercial enterprise.

John they obviously haven't bought much, if from 2003 to 2010, FC owed land has dropped buy 630.000 ha.

Regards Gruditch

Sorry Felix, but,,,, 'The Big Society' .....

Gary said ........in the best interest of our remaining woodland.
I would not dispute that for now; but 20 or 50 years down the road?
What will it do, but delay the inevitable result that isolation of woodland sites brings?

It may be what we have to settle for; it is certainly the best of a bad job.
But we know we need, and should be asking, for more...

At the current sale rate of 15% per 4 years, there will be no FC owned land in 50 years anyway, so lets get the best deal we can now.

Regards Gruditch

Zonda wrote:Sorry Felix, but,,,, 'The Big Society' .....

Just couldn't resist it eh..?!

My jury is out on this. The principle of The Big Society seems to be to give people responsibility for themselves, their community, and their environment. The Big Society aims to give people a policy framework to enable them to do this. The antithesis I guess of The Big State, under which many of us have suffered for longer than I care to mention. All well and good.

As far as I can tell, the main hurdle with this proposition is that the majority of people (or at least the majority who have been vocal on the matter) do not want to take any responsibility for themselves, their community or their environment. The public want to be nannied by the state; exemplified in the oft heard mantra of the 21st century "they should do something about it.."

Felix.

Just couldn't resist it.

Felix

With my Moderator hat on, let's keep this valuable thread on topic and be careful not to let this descend into a political rant; I can rant with the best of them, but have to restrain myself while on UKB

Oops!

Can't keep politics out of this one Felix.

Big Society and the Forestry Commission: How it works....?

"Heritage Woodlands" = "Saved - for the community to pay for"
"Commercial Conifer Plantations" = " Sold - clear-felled for a quick profit"

N

Probably, because that is how society shall want it to work.

I addition, as a member of a community, I don't object in the least to paying for elements of my heritage to be saved and managed for future generations. That way, I can contribute my penneth in the direction that I want it to go. This may be woodlands, or equally (or perhaps more likely) it may be part of my industrial herritage that I see crumbling around me. I shall enjoy having a say and playing a part. But then, that's possibly because I am not a believer in sitting back an waiting for someone else to do things for me while complaining that they should do something about it.

When you look at the publicly available information pertaining to the state of England's SSSI's (unfavourable/declining in the main) one has hard evidence of another quango that has failed in the most basic elements of it's remit. I am talking of course about NE. I make no apologies that when I look closely at the facts and figures I feel my faith in top-down state micro-control has evaporated.

Felix.

My jury has come in with a verdict.

We can argue till doomsday, about the 'Big Society' , and i was glad to see this general theory put into practice recently, when the government failed to manage some everyday requirements of the under privileged and poor. The citizens decided they must pull together to make the country a better place. Trouble is,,,, this was in Egypt.

Sylvie_h wrote:If you are against the government's project then you can sign the following petition:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/save-our-forests
They have already obtained around 500 000 signatures and the more they will get, the better it will be for the future of our forests.
Sylvie

You can guarantee this can you?

I very much doubt it. How quickly people forget the public's outrage in the 1960's when it was learned that the FC proposed to turn almost the entire acreage of the New Forest into commercial conifer plantation with just a fringe of broad leaved trees around the fringes as a scenic curtain.

None of us can foresee the future of the small percentage of our country's woodland that this debate centres around.

Felix.

NickB wrote:Commercial Conifer Plantations" = " Sold - clear-felled for a quick profit"

Most worked woodlands only have one contractor at a time working the wood. They work one area at a time, usually just thinning, then move to another. In some areas they will fell all the pines, GOOD NEWS FOR BUTTERFLIES, then often replant with beech for future usage as firewood.

Regards Gruditch

I have noticed in the past 60 years of my brief life, and under the rule of,,,, this government,,,,, and that government, that 'forgetting' it is a human failing. This is why we perpetuate all the mistakes of the past, and are incapable of learning from history. This is why we encompass the religious myths and this is why as a multi-racial society we cannot move forwards.
We are doomed to be stuck as we are,, fighting each other 'till the end. The forests are not the problem,,,, we are... Zonda.

...often replant with beech for future usage as firewood...

I had actually agonised whether or not my log burning stove (installed last autumn) was good or bad for the environment, especially for butterfly habitats. The recent Butterfly seems to have come down in favour for exactly the reason Gruditch quotes here. Clear felling and replanting is not too different from the earlier beneficial practice of coppicing. So I can burn my British-sourced logs with a clear conscience. Wood fires (apart from transport considerations) are more-or-less carbon neutral. My fire was much appreciated during December's cold spell.

Jack

Jack,,,, the truth is mate,,, both you and me are bad for butterfly habitats.

It's because we are the all invasive, and very temporary Homo sapiens. Won't the wildlife be glad when we are gone. Many people acknowledge that we are descended from apes, but very few people can see themselves within that group.