BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.

Subject: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 08:46 AM

Think I'm exaggerating?

The British government is considering plans to sell off ALL the forests. Not some of them. Not most of them. The whole lot. From the Guardian article (link below), it means:

all state-owned English trees across the commission's 635,000-acre Forestry Commission estate. This includes many royal forests, state-owned ancient woodlands, sites of special scientific interest, heathland, campsites, farms and sporting estates.

And who else except large corporations will be able to afford them? We all know what happens when private big biz interests get their hands on land.

Please sign the petition below, though you'll have to give your name, a valid email, and a UK postcode.

The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/dec/22/tory-privatisation-all-state-forests?CMP=twt_gu

Sign the petition (UK address holders)

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forests#petition

If you're on Twitter or Facebook, please relay this.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 10:12 AM

sellig off the silver still

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 11:09 AM

If any forest is sold off, there needs to be a rigorous forfeiture clause that states that no part of any forest may be used for redevelopment, enclosed, levy charges for access, or sold to a third party, and may only be used for existing purposes - i.e. forest currently used for timber may continue to be managed and used for that purpose.

Any breaking of the clause must result in immediate, and uncompensated loss of title, with no appeal.

However, acceptable developments may include measures to improve accessibility, education and conservation:

Footpaths, observation points, raised platforms, refreshment and toilet facilities, education centres, car parking may be improved, subject to agreement by a Royal Commission, who would carry out a full impact assessment, and only approve where it is clearly evidence that such a development would not be damaging or detrimental to the forest/woodland.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 11:12 AM

Only after the last tree has been cut down.
Only after the last river has been poisoned.
Only after the last fish has been caught.
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.

Cree Indian Prophecy.

Just signed and shared on my facebook.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 11:34 AM

Good clauses, SPB, but I have no confidence that any government who would deprive its citizens of their public forests in the name of money will be the least bit interested in imposing restrictions on the buyer. After all, that makes a huge dent in profitability - which is obviously their motivation for selling at all. Otherwise, why do it?

I feel any commercial transaction concerning natural (and irreplaceable) resources it totally unacceptable. With no conditions attached - conditions merely dilute and limit. This move has to be prevented outright. It. Should. Not. Happen.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 12:00 PM

I don't know about the UK but in the US if a story like this got bruited about one would find a crazy person at the beginning of it. Ain't gonna happen.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 12:31 PM

Sorry, I'm not quite with you - what ain't gonna happen? It is the UK I'm talking about!

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: kendall
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 01:15 PM

Thanks VT. I've used that one many times.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 01:50 PM

I"m saying, Bonnie Jean, that the chances of *anybody* cutting down *all* the forests in the UK are nil.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 02:00 PM

All the government-owned forests. I only know what the Guardian article says, but it's a reputable newspaper and not just some scream-sheet. I'm not sure what you're basing your information that the chances are Nil on, but I hope you're right. (Facts...?)

I still think it needs to be protested, though. You know what happens when "enough good men do nothing". It's perfectly fair to raise the issue for people's attention. If you're not based in the UK I suppose it's not such a concern, though.

[It's Bonnie Lee, actually]

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Gurney
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 02:10 PM

Something similar has already happened in NZ. The Government has given some forest, plantation forest with pine trees, to settle Maori claims of mistreatment in the past. It has already sold, at a peppercorn price, a huge tract of land to an ex-Governor-General, and some into foreign ownership. Generally, they sell only the trees and forest rights, not the land, but not always.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 02:11 PM

Ebbie they use "harvesters" to cut timber in the UK.
My area is heavily forested, but the harvesters sail throught it.

Some ares round me,have been cleared and re planted four times in my lifetime.
The harvester catches the tree at the base, snips it off then runs up the trunk removing all the branches in one operafion.
The machine automatically cuts the tree into lengths and stacks the wood ready for transportation.
These machines are working 24/7 in teams of perhaps 6 harvesters, very little labour is involved on land which supported hundreds of farm workers in my youth.
Aforestation started under govt control in the 1950's, it was heavily labour intensive at that time.

I think it is more profitable these days.....so will attract private interest.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 02:24 PM

The facts appear to be that the state-owned 635,000-acres of the Forestry Commission are at risk of being sold off to private concerns. Ignoring or casually dismissing this issue does not seem to be the most constructive course of action for those who have something to lose. Hence this thread, which has a substantial British readership.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 02:52 PM

(Sorry, Bonnie SHALjean.)

If your concern is that old growth forests are planned for destruction, that is a different matter, and of course, I would be concerned about that. There are many areas in the US where that has occurred and will continue. In Oregon on the Pacific West coast, for instance, over the last couple of generations there has been widewpread clear cutting; re-planting is not the same, it does not replace the old nurturing habitat for woods animals.

I understand that in the UK there is very little virgin timber left- although a forest that is now 100 or 200 years old may very well present much the same habitat as virgin timber would- I don't know. For timber that is cut today most of us won't be around long enough to see.

I think that in Oregon's tree farms (thickly planted plots of same-kind trees) the harvesting length of time is considered to be 40 years. These trees don't have a chance at becoming normal forests.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 03:06 PM

Growth period is much quicker here Ebbie 20/30 years most of our timber is used for pulp.

Oregon pine is building timber. We grow mainly Sika Spruce.

After WW2, unemployment was high, and the old mixed farming system was dying out. Govt financed tree farming was seen as an answer to all the problems, but by the seventies it was becoming highly mechanised, now very few are employed.

Hopefully as the recession bites we will be forced back to the old labour intensive farming methods...could be a start on the new lifestyle which we will be obliged to adopt.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 03:20 PM

Ebbie, I know what you mean about tree-farm growth, but plenty of the Forestry Commission acreage has mature trees - some of which are specifically designated as "ancient woodlands". They aren't differentiating these types, but just cite that "all" the Forestry Commission land could be put up for sale. That represents a considerable loss.

Remember too how much smaller (and older a society) the UK is than the USA. Great Britain has 61 million people crammed onto an island of 81,000 square miles. (The gospel according to St. Wiki says it's the third most populated island on Earth.) That's 61 million people living in an non-expandable area the size of Kansas (population 2.8 million) or half the size of California (population 37 million divided by 2) depending on which statistics you Google - but either way, it makes a real difference.

Someone once said that nature was society's lungs. I have never heard a more apt description - especially when space is at a premium.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 03:43 PM

From the guardian???? Funny that there has been nothing in the Telegraph!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 05:00 PM

Not nicknamed the Torygraph for nothing, then...

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: GUEST,Allan Con
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 05:47 PM

"The British government is considering plans to sell off ALL the forests. Not some of them. Not most of them. The whole lot"

The whole premis of this thread is at best hysterical exaggeration though. The British government is not talking about selling all of the forests. 74% or so of the govt owned forests in Great Britain (ie not the UK as the foresty commission covers GB only)are in Scotland and Wales and controlled by the devolved parliament and assembly. The measure relates to English forests only! The bulk of Forestry Commission land is not affected. So what we are talking about is govt owned forests in England only - which accounts for about 18% or so of the total forestry land in England. It is still no less an important issue of course but it is best to keep it in some kind of perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 06:13 PM

Woops, sorry, mea culpa - I did misread "England" and of course that makes a difference. I deny the charge of hysterical exaggeration though: it was just oversight. But even if this only applies to England, I still think it's appalling that they would even consider this move, and that people should be aware of it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 06:26 PM

Funny, I thought I posted here. Was I modded or is the post-eating fairy out again?

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 06:38 PM

I never saw nuffink, guv

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: GUEST,Allan Con
Date: 28 Dec 10 - 06:57 PM

Sorry I didn't really mean to accuse your good self of gross exaggeration as much as the newspaper story itself which just doesn't put things into any kind of perspective. In truth there is 199,000 hectares of Forestry Commission land in England against 2,846,000 hectares of Forest Land in the UK in total. So we are talking about a possible change in ownership of 6.99% of the total forestry land in the UK. There have already been changes though. In 1980 the Forestry Commission/Forestry Service owned about 43.34% of the UK's forests. In 2007 it was down to about 29.15%. So it is an ongoing issue and also to be fair it is hard to compare like with like as the 2007 total forest area is up by about 30% from 1980.

I agree it is still a big issue and like you I kind of like the idea of public ownership of the land - though I suppose it also depends on what kind of guarantees and safeguards are put in place.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lvZ-LbP6XUgJ:www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/AA2008/21_6.xls+%22non-forestry+commission%22&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 04:46 AM

Government sells everything it can lay hands on. Labour and Tory alike. Thank Thatcher for the precedent.

What will they sell when everything is gone?

You and me, Mate.

They are already selling the old folks, vulnerable adults and children in care to private companies.

Cue reprise of the WORK HOUSE.

Signed Tamara in a Dickensian bleak mood.


Polish your boot, Guv?

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 05:32 AM

Sure... just as long as you pay for the polish...

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 06:11 AM

the tories would even asset strip the clinkers off my arse hairs
if they could find an international corporate buyer and get away with it...

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 06:59 AM

Bloody hell. Is there nothing this government is prepared to do to reduce us to the level of a third world stateless nation?

Here's a verse of a song I wrote during the last round of privatisation, when the Forestry Commission was under threat.

"And not content with selling off our life sustaining water,
The forestry, with impunity, is led off to the slaughter.
And every grand, ancient woodland, on every height and elevation,
Will be for the chop, and the long drop of privatisation."

What was that about King John and the robber barons and the Sherrif of Nottingham?

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 08:36 AM

You realise, of course, that a petition has to be based on giving your opposition / opinion etc of something factual or it not only can be ignored, but will be ignored on a technicality which makes the organisers of the petition irresponsible as well as (possibly) the government.

All the forests is, as stated above, 18% of them. Petition for 18% by all means, but to petition for things that are not happening gets you as far as tree hugging.

I am in broad agreement with the concerns of this thread but try to keep what anger I have for facts not exaggerations.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 09:48 AM

Fair enough, Willie - but even after readjusting the thread's over-wide scope (for which I have already apologised) to reflect the reality of the situation, it still makes me angry. Tree-hugging gets you nowhere. Democratic protesting can. Sometimes. To an extent. But it's all we have.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 10:43 AM

I know it's all we have Bonnie.

That's why I am a stickler for accuracy, as much as it makes me come across as a pedant. Facts leave those we wish to influence with nowhere to go, other than argue the facts.

Give them ammunition such as exaggerations and the facts get lost in the war of words.

Been there.

Both sides of the coin for that matter.

(Not trees though.)

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 11:09 AM

Will it help if I re-write the opening post and ask the clones if they'll change it? Though if anyone takes time to actually read through the thread, I think the accurate points do eventually come out clearly, from in Allan Con's post onward. Otherwise I don't really know how to fix what was, as I've said, a mistake. One which has been clarified - so accuracy has now been established.

I still believe this is a worthwhile matter for discussion (and protest): the core issue remains the same, even though I initially overstated the case. A reduction in size doesn't make the subject any less relevant.

It's also fair to question the mindset of any government that would even consider selling off woodland, whatever the actual acreage amounts to.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Dec 10 - 12:17 PM

No, not at all.

The well meaning thrust of your post comes over loud and clear. Also, the principle rather than the detail is a matter that could be debated?

However, on the back of that, I am using it as an example of voices being heard on the basis of facts, real hard facts. As you say, the actual amount is a matter for concern anyway.

That said, selling off woodland is not in itself a bad thing in principle. The woodland is in the main cash crop rather than ancient heritage site. I have yet to see a government agency look after commercial interests better than private enterprise. Horses for courses.

When the government sold off British Rail precast concrete yards, two things happened. 1) the tax revenue was higher than the gross profit the had managed to get beforehand. 2) The increase in production through finding new markets managed to employ more local people, buy from suppliers etc etc. Competing with and winning against foreign suppliers.

In that case, selling off assets was a wise move.

In this case? Perhaps, if it is cash crop. Not if it is woodland to be preserved. (Good job this is England though. Have you seen the state of National trust Scotland accounts? Can't be trusted with a pocket watch, let alone a country estate....)

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Mo the caller
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 09:08 AM

If you live in England the fact that there are state owned forests in Scotland is of little relevance.
The story of the Forestry Commission is interesting. In the middle of the last century it was very commercialised, plantations of conifers. Then, thanks to public pressure, amenity use became a factor. Most (AFAIK) are open access so that the public can wander anywhere, rather than being restricted to public rights of way (though for safety this is limited when they are felling etc.) Cyclists, horse-riders and others (husky drivers etc) use the tracks. Deciduous trees are planted along the paths to give an impression of mixed woodland and a more varied ecosystem.
There are commercial ventures like visitor centres and cafes which are well used, car parking must create a good revenue, bike hire, Go-Ape - an area with rope walkways through the trees, tree nurseries, Christmas tree sales.

It would be a shame to go back to barren conifer plantations or other land usewhen we need our 'lungs' in this crowded country.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: GUEST,Allan Con
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 09:55 AM

"If you live in England the fact that there are state owned forests in Scotland is of little relevance."

True but the original post said the British govt was selling all the forests. It did not give the true picture. That was my point.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 11:36 AM

I think what Mo means is that - the (unintentional!!!!) inaccuracies in the original post notwithstanding - this issue is still of concern to anyone who lives in England. Because they are the ones who would be affected.

And, whether selling off as a "cash crop" is a wise move financially or not, once it's gone it's gone. It may mean a one-off monetary gain, but other losses will be incurred. Whether or not these are important to the government is another question, but they should be. It's still loss to the people they rule over and are responsible for. This, more than specific geographical boundaries, is my underlying worry.

What else will they try to sell off? Reminds me of that old saying about understanding the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 12:10 PM

"I think what Mo means is that - the (unintentional!!!!) inaccuracies in the original post notwithstanding - this issue is still of concern to anyone who lives in England. Because they are the ones who would be affected"

Actually I wouldn't really totally agree with his point anyway. We are a small island and anyone concerned about environmental issues etc would be concerned whether they live north or south of the border. Likewise with the family silver. Westminster runs the commission in England and Holyrood runs the equivilent in Scotland but that is only about the democarcy of who makes the decisions etc in the relevant countries. And even at that not all aspects of the Forestry Commission Scotland are devolved to Holyrood. In the end it is all owned by a cross border state body (ie a UK state body). It is a bit like saying if your county (or perhaps even constituency) isn't on the coast then you shouldn't care a jot about what happens with marine issues.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: GUEST,Allan Con
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 12:11 PM

Sorry that last post was me! On the vino :-)

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Mo the caller
Date: 30 Dec 10 - 01:36 PM

I think what I was getting at was that forest are needed in England.

Scotland is less crowded and the forests there may be less at risk as there is less pressure on land use. But the crowded together English need to be able to walk/cycle/ride in the woods near their homes.

Yes of course the environmental impact is important wherever you live, and a mixed woodland in one county may have different flora and fauna from that in another. We want them all taken care of.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: GUEST,Allan Con
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 03:50 AM

"We want them all taken care of."

Certainly agree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: UK govt wants to sell off the FORESTS.
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Dec 10 - 09:36 AM

Hey, ya'll... Get over it... No matter where you live this is the conservatives answer to everything... Sell, sell, sell... Here in the good ol' US of A, they want to sell off roads and let the buyers charge you to use them... They already are swelling off park land and land that has been put into conservancy... What next??? Sell off the sidewalks???

All I gotta say is, "Privatize this, Bunky"!!!

No, here's one ya'll gonna love... Our mentally challenged governor wants to sell off our ABC (Booze) stores... He says he can get $600M fir 'um to use to fix our roads even tho $600M wouldn't even fill the pot holes, much le3ss fix anything else...

Here's the kicker: The ABC (Booze) store bring in $200M a year in profit for the state... Don't take the Wes Ginny Slide Rule to figure out that if he sells 'um that in 3 years he's gonna be missin' that $200M a year... Mental midgetry at work here...

Nevermind...

B~