I feel a bit for Defra over the subject of flogging off the family trees - the nation is up in arms over it. But it's not clear what 'it' is yet.
Every now and then Caroline Spelman produces reassurances in the media or parliament which actually look quite reassuring - see here, here and here. and yet the subject does not go away (see here, here, here and here). Let's wait and see what the consultation says - and then look to fix anything that is wrong with it. Or maybe I'm getting soft?
Back in October this blog set out the RSPB's view that there may be some sense in the state selling off some purely commercial, intensive forest plantations and yet we would be worried if forests of high nature conservation value are not protected. That remains our overall take on the subject.
I can understand why the residents of the Forest of Dean do not want their forest destroyed - but as I understand it, the Forest of Dean is Crown land and can't be sold. Am I wrong?
What we may see is that some forest land is sold - let's make sure they are the right areas. It isn't unreasonable for government to look at selling off some assets or to look at different methods to get those forests managed. But let's see what government proposes. Maybe we in the RSPB will hate the proposals - and if so then we'll say so, and be as bolshy as everyone else!
And I have just noticed that the article in the Independent over the Christmas break about NGOs and NNRs prompted a very nice letter from a Mr Crocker from Gloucestershire and a slightly blustering letter from Defra Minister James Paice. Mr Crocker - nice letter though it was - is wrong to say that the RSPB is rich and wrong to say that we don't know much about all those species that are not birds - but all the nice things he says are completely true. And Mr Paice seems to say that the Independent article is wrong and then confirms much of what it said! That's clear then.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
Hi Sooty; glad you laughed but very serious point; why are we so burdening the young ? My Dad God Bless him "benefited" greatly here for he lived to 91 and I am sure his pension was geared to age 70 life expectancy when he was contributing.
Mark; I think you and RSPB are letting the public down with this stuff about "state forestry farms"; the questions remain about the environmental record of private forestry and the management of landscape; two very good letters in today's Guardian; I personally wish to row back on letting large upland tracts go.
The truth is that if this government wishes to be the "greenest" ever then surely the replanting of conifer monoculture with greater numbers of native broadleaves to prevent the further acidification of soils and streams is the way for ward; ie larch etc.
At this moment I am very anxious that Baroness Royall is sacrificing the wider public interest re public woodlands for her own birthright as a "Forester of Dean" and focusing solely on the defence of the Forest of Dean and the traditional rights.
Peter Plover