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.
Sooty I have been an RSPB member since 1967. I do not often feel it necessary to spend energy on the "converted".
It is quite simple will the RSPB endorse the amendments laid down by Labour's Baroness Royall ?
I reiterate that this FC Sell Off has no mandate from either Coalition manifesto and therefore these proposals should be debated on the floor of the House of Commons and that is the proper and only due place for this to be decided; that is our parliamentary history from Cromwell to Churchill to Cameron.
In my view RSPB quite simply has to respect and make clear that democratic authority. This Sell Off proposal that is already seen as lacking authority and legitimacy. Will RSPB move now ? Or has the tide on this already left as far as RSPB's authority is concerned ?
Peter Plover
Well I think Loveitorloseit Iwould have thought a lot more of your pleading if you had not as it appears whether correct or not joined the forum with the sole purpose of getting the one million members to back your scheme and quite honestly you do not give a monkeys about us it is just the votes you want.How I wish you had joined a year ago but guess you did not need us then.Strangely you are the second one to join and within a day or two do exactly the same thing.Sorry in this instance Mark but hate people taking advantage of anyone even a large organisation find it really obscene and hope you do not censor it but will understand if you do,it has got to be fair game for people to join the forum just for there own gain.
Hello Mark and my fellow posters
First let me preface my comments by saying that I admire and am grateful for bodies like the RSPB and the work that you do more than I can say, and I'm sure you'll be lobbying furiously over the proposed woodland selloff in due course, but, but, but ... I'm worried, worried sick, basically.
The RSPB just doesn't seem to be treating this threat with the extreme urgency that it demands, and I can't help feeling that your organisation can't quite gets its head around the sheer blank-eyed indifference of the people who would drive this through, and, most of all, those who would profit enormously from it. All the years of campaigning, of consciousness-raising, of opening eyes to the natural wonders that could fill our every day might come to absolutely nothing ...you've just got to take on board that we're all dealing with people here who would treat the most precious, spirit-affirming and life-saturated wildlife haven with all the care and attention they'd give to a can of peas.
OK, so I run the risk of entering (or am already deeply in) headless chicken territory here, but please Mark, we're talking about things that have been growing for (thousands?) of years, and which might be trashed in months - on our watch. So, yes, this is emotional - among other things.
So what I'm asking, pleading for - in the generality - is a sense of urgency commensuate with the threat. I have been following the technical aspects of the proposals clearly and closely and nothing I've seen suggests that I should be dampening down my alarm. And what I'm asking, pleading for - in the specific - is that the RSPB drops its rather standoffish approach to the 38 degrees 'Save our Forests' petition (I'm not connected with them in any way). Yes perhaps it is a little alarmist (I don't know), and yes, perhaps a little emotive too, but come on, it's an insurance policy. It's a shriek of anguish (just read some of the comments accompanying the signatures) from the very sort of people who established and fought to perpetuate the ideals of the RSPB against all the forces that would have just destroyed. So let's not knock it. We can lobby as well.
Nothing communicates to the distracted and overburdened general public, who probably know little or nothing about this selloff, like good, solid numbers. Don't we all recall the attention that the 10, Downing Street road-pricing petition attracted? I hope you'll forgive my criticism Mark, but I do sense a wave of disdain from the RSPB and from the Wildlife Trusts for anything so trivial as a petition, but this is what the media pick up on, this is what will really get through thick government skulls that massive numbers of people care very deeply about this, and, that massive numbers of votes may be lost in the future unless they scrap these proposals.
So please, Mark, can't we please have some good solid support from the RSPB for the 38 degrees petition?
You have it within your gift to urge, what? 250 000 more signatories over in the petition's direction. If it takes behind-the-scenes lobbying as well, then I'm sure you'll do it superbly, but we've just got to smack the ecologically illiterate AND US between the eyes before, during, and after as well. I'm afraid that if we 'wait and see what the consultation says - and then look to fix anything that is wrong with it' as you wrote above it will be too late to raise a massive petition, and too late to galvanise people for the fight ahead. If it's all just a matter of committees, the why would the RSPB bother attracting members? So let us - everyone in the conservation community - prepare arguments and counter-arguments, prepare for a long fight, but let's pull together and push as many names as we can beg, borrow or steal on this petition as if our lives depended on it!
Mark, I somehow missed this blog which is a pity because it makes me very angry (not the blog - the potential sell off.) I will keep my comments until we get the white paper but just to answer Mark and add a couple of things at this stage.
My heart is in the Forest of Dean and this was Crown land and in and out of crown / govt ownership since 50 years before William the Conqueror. It became part of FC estate in the 60s I believe and at present cannnot be sold because it is specifically excluded under the 1981 amendment of the Forestry Act. (For very well argued reasons).
The second point I find odd about this is that the United Nations has declared 2011 as the International Year of Forests.
It has invited governments, organisations and individuals to do all they can to raise public awareness of the key role of forests and sustainable forest management in building a greener, more equitable and sustainable future.
The Forestry Commission on its website states "it is pleased to play its part and will make a full contribution to the UK’s response. Our programme of educational, community and recreational events throughout the year will be used to highlight the Year of Forests and we are planning many more projects and events throughout 2011."
I do wonder if anyone has told FC they may not be able to undertake this commitment.
I am sure once the White paper is out you will revisit this subject and I might submit a much longer entry.
The Cotswold Water park sightings website
My Flicker page
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".