Interesting Discussion in the Guardian

[John Russell]

There's an interesting discussion going on today in the Guardian's Environment section entitled, " For sale: all of our forests. Not some of them, nor most of them – the whole lot".

 

For sale: all of our forests. Not some of them, nor most of them ? the whole lot | John Vidal | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

I've commented on there under my user name 'JRWoodman'. Be interested to hear what others think. Am I right?

[likeitorlumpit]

4.5% woodland in this country

Is that really true including all the small parcels of woods that i see every day driving around.

The govt. have identified a growing demand for people to own woodland and aim to benefit from this- for us hopefully

Sell it in parcels of 5 acres at £5000 per acre so 600'000 acres becomes 3billion pounds.

Not a bad sum and woodland still protected by law.

[mr kipling]

I think your comments are spot on and i also think its a disgrace all the woodland sitting around unmanaged there is a small area of trees opposite my house and most of them are hung up in other trees or on the ground it would supply many homes with firewood if cleared and replanted with native species then managed properly...

 

Chris

[rootstoshoots]

I just read the article, do you guys really think this is serious? I always believed that the UK was so far ahead of environmental issues and protection of their natural resources, more so than the USA which believe me anyway they can make a buck, no matter what it is someone will destroy it and sell it. This is very heart breaking. who decides these issues?

[Bundle 2]

I think your comments are spot on and i also think its a disgrace all the woodland sitting around unmanaged there is a small area of trees opposite my house and most of them are hung up in other trees or on the ground it would supply many homes with firewood if cleared and replanted with native species then managed properly...

 

Chris

 

 

Well hey there Chris....What exactly do you think is the right management protocol for a woodland of this kind? Perhaps you could start by telling us what is wrong with the "minimum intervention" model about which you are so offended?

 

Tim.

[Bundle 2]

There's an interesting discussion going on today in the Guardian's Environment section entitled, " For sale: all of our forests. Not some of them, nor most of them – the whole lot".

 

For sale: all of our forests. Not some of them, nor most of them ? the whole lot | John Vidal | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

I've commented on there under my user name 'JRWoodman'. Be interested to hear what others think. Am I right?

 

 

 

Taken from your comments in reply to the article.

".......No one is proposing disbanding the Forestry Commission or relinquishing the tight controls on development...."

 

Can I suggest you look at the emerging policy here?

The Localism Bill - Local government - Department for Communities and Local Government

 

I am not convinced that there is enough of a consensus for coherent and informed decision making with regards the development of the resource in either the wider sense or on an arboreal level. What was it you said..? "Lets get some balance.." Good luck with that!

Agreed...the Localism bill is no more than emerging policy, but may become law. This has been discussed but with little response from the forum here...Funny. I thought folk would have been a little more peed off and found more to say..I probably expect too much. It's christmas I guess!

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/23402-interesting-times.html

 

The point has been highlighted that larger organisations are likely to be those bodies most likely to be able to fund acquisitions, or to gain funds by way of loans for said real estate.

You dont have to think back that far to be reminded of the huge sums of money already loaned to the govt in a national response to the banking crisis! And yet, no one political head seems willing or able to insist on a change in banking practices that would see loans to smaller industry and business proposals....Weak and directionless, but that's just my opinion .

What the hell makes the current coalition govt think it plausible or in anyway palatable to suggest that an already cash strapped public purse should be depleted further in order to bail out yet more under the thinly disguised heading of "private business and individuals" Dont forget, we have already paid for these assets by way of public tax input.....Now we gotta buy resources we already own! It aint gonna go anywhere you cant predict.

Its absolute madness ...but dont take my word for it.

I didn't vote for them. Who can say they did....?

 

[John Russell]

Hi, Tim.

 

Sorry, I didn't see your original thread -- I've only just joined the forum.

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the banks -- all governments seem unwilling to take them on and put a stop to their parasitical behaviour. Personally I'd nationalise the lot. At least then any profits would accrue to the exchequer and could be used for the national benefit, rather than for the benefit of a few privileged individuals who are allowed to suck at the throat of society.

 

With regard to the 'Localism' bill: I declare, in principle, I'm in favour of devolving power down to the people. I fully understand what you say about problems of 'local Mafia' -- I've witnessed what it can do on a few occasions -- but surely in a democracy that's about getting local people involved and enthused with running things in a way that ensures the few local elite can't grab control. It's my experience that when local corruption occurs -- and what you describe is simply corruption -- everyone affected knows about it and it's then central government's job to inspect, consult and intervene when necessary. However, the fact that there are occasional instances of corruption is no reason to believe centralised control is always best. Rather, put in place ways to prevent it happening. Central control is right for some things at national level but it's my view that it has a tendency to spread its tentacles too far.

 

I agree funding is an issue and it's unfortunate that this idea is proposed at a time when the public purse is being stretched. Again, this is no reason not to give it a chance.

 

With regard to woodland ownership by the Forestry Commission; the reason I made the comment I did is that I felt too many people are painting a picture of the country's woodland being razed to the ground at the whim of new owners who wouldn't give a toss about it. I'm not sure I know of a single person who has bought woodland and then set out to environmentally devalue it. Personally I'm in favour of national ownership of 'special' woodland in areas of outstanding beauty, national parks and the like, however the idea of such quangos as owners of assets is of dubious benefit. Surely the Forestry Commission can do its work, much as it does now, as long as it possesses the necessary powers to guide and control the management of all woodland to achieve both national and local objectives?

[TRADITIONAL LOGGERS]

FC have pulled a load of woodlands that were on the market in the south of England. No idea the reasons but it is odd.

[Bundle 2]

John,

Welcome to the forum.....

I think perhaps the localism bill may work too.

It is not so clear to me why the seeming "political expedience" has been presented to us in the terms it has though.

My greatest concern comes from listening to the debates and interviews with newly elected ministers. I just do not get a reassuring vibe from it at all. My fear is that the politics is not new. That the ministers are not in fact listening. That the seeming haste and immediacy is one of political persuasion and that, ultimately...when it is necessary to make ourselves heard over the din from westminster....we will simply find ourselves without any means to make this possible.

Interesting times indeed. Thanks for posting and I hope you enjoy the site.....!

[High Scale]

I liked the reply you gave John, clear and level headed unlike the original Guardian article although MelonCauli's comment hit the nail square on the head.