Plenty of news today about forest sell-offs and lease-offs but here's an interesting twist. Some Natural England staff are coming together to offer to manage NNRs through creating a new company to do the management work. They may see their jobs at risk and this is a way of saving them. It's an interesting idea. But would it lead to any real savings in money for the taxpayer I wonder?
And 'Would forest sell-offs and lease-offs lead to savings?' is the question asked in the papers today too. As this blog said earlier in the week - it might not be all about money but it must be partly about money. We need to get good value for money from any disposal of our land (notice I say land not trees).
Will there be an FC staff offer to manage heritage forests similar to that from NE staff if the government presses on? And might there not be some value in combining these two bits of our land, with heritage value, in some way in the future?
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
Sooty, Sorry its me again. Those who use forests for leisure activity pay well for it. It draws in considerable income to the community. The suppliers of that leisure use forested areas and pay for it.
We must get away from regarding forests as reserve areas where I would totally agree about restrictions on losse dogs, noisy activities etc.
What is a forest. To some degree the trees are a distraction. Originally forests were hunting areas full of open space with noise, with deer, boar and wolves being hunted, horses ridden and entertainment being the name of the game. This has developed into leisure activity as we know it and yet, alongside that, biodiversity has flourished and continues to do so except where the the modernisation of forestry itself came along and we filled the spaces with monoculture trees.
The Cotswold Water park sightings website
My Flicker page