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 herehere 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.

Parents
  • Well I think WigglyWorm Hole has hit the nail fair square on the head that once its private without any legal designations one's influence is limited

    I owe Baroness Royal of the Forest of Dean an apology; in her own words she says

    "I am against the sale of forests which are national assets.  I can assure that I will be acting in the interests of all of the forests held by the Forestry Commission and, as you will see, my name is on several amendments, one of which is to delete clause 17, the clause that would enable the sale of the forests.  The reason that I am particularly concerned about the Forest of Dean is that we do not have the same rights as other forests, we only have customary privileges and these cannot be preserved if the land is sold.  You will therefore understand why I have tabled specific amendments on the Dean Forest".

    Peter Plover 

Comment
  • Well I think WigglyWorm Hole has hit the nail fair square on the head that once its private without any legal designations one's influence is limited

    I owe Baroness Royal of the Forest of Dean an apology; in her own words she says

    "I am against the sale of forests which are national assets.  I can assure that I will be acting in the interests of all of the forests held by the Forestry Commission and, as you will see, my name is on several amendments, one of which is to delete clause 17, the clause that would enable the sale of the forests.  The reason that I am particularly concerned about the Forest of Dean is that we do not have the same rights as other forests, we only have customary privileges and these cannot be preserved if the land is sold.  You will therefore understand why I have tabled specific amendments on the Dean Forest".

    Peter Plover 

Children
No Data