Forestry Commission may face government axe (From Daily Echo)

.. wood you believe it, there're in for the chop.
Don't you just get sycamore headlines like this?

Belt tightening is one thing but this is environmental suicide.
Savings can no doubt be made but axing the whole commission?
Madness! The New Forest is neglected by visitors as it is - without maintenence it will be destroyed.

Bam Boozler wrote:
Belt tightening is one thing but this is environmental suicide. Savings can no doubt be made but axing the whole commission? Madness! The New Forest is neglected by visitors as it is - without maintenence it will be destroyed.

Fully agree with you. We can not afford to lose such an important environmental area.
And you would have thought that as Chief Reporter, Chris Yandell would have better writing skills and not leave so many words out!!!

actually not a bad idea at all, the've completely messed up the rhodedendrum drive area near lyndhurst by trying to divert a river onto it's course of 200 years ago, the river is full of silt and paths have been closed and blocked with earth moving machinery. the sooner the idiots go the better

derek james wrote:
actually not a bad idea at all, the've completely messed up the rhodedendrum drive area near lyndhurst by trying to divert a river onto it's course of 200 years ago, the river is full of silt and paths have been closed and blocked with earth moving machinery. the sooner the idiots go the better

i think you find that work is being ordered to be done by the new forest park body and not the forestry commission body

Of the two official bodies concerned, The New Forest National Park Authority (NPA) have only been around a few years and are a controversial, ineffective and costly quango of an organisation to put it politely! The Forestry Commission on the other hand have been around for decades and do a thoroughly fantastic job managing the forest in a subtle yet effective manner, isn't it obvious which is the more likely candidate for the chop???

Forest Resident wrote:
Of the two official bodies concerned, The New Forest National Park Authority (NPA) have only been around a few years and are a controversial, ineffective and costly quango of an organisation to put it politely! The Forestry Commission on the other hand have been around for decades and do a thoroughly fantastic job managing the forest in a subtle yet effective manner, isn't it obvious which is the more likely candidate for the chop???

another point to the forestry commission is national and is not a quango its a state owned body (a nationalise industry)
where has the new forest park is a quango and only local to the new forest and is private holdings.

Bam Boozler wrote:
Belt tightening is one thing but this is environmental suicide.
Savings can no doubt be made but axing the whole commission?
Madness! The New Forest is neglected by visitors as it is - without maintenence it will be destroyed.

I think you will find that if you leave the forest to be a forest nature will take good care of it. To be neglected would give it the rest it needs. It does its own maintenance, its called composting.

Stillness wrote:

Bam Boozler wrote:
Belt tightening is one thing but this is environmental suicide.
Savings can no doubt be made but axing the whole commission?
Madness! The New Forest is neglected by visitors as it is - without maintenence it will be destroyed.

I think you will find that if you leave the forest to be a forest nature will take good care of it. To be neglected would give it the rest it needs. It does its own maintenance, its called composting.

Not so i'm afraid, as natural and beautiful as the New Forest is, the reality is that it is almost entirely man made and therefore requires management and maintenance to keep it in its current state as a flourishing and thriving forest. Without human intervention it would quickly become overgrown and in places dangerous to the visiting public.

Stillness wrote:

Bam Boozler wrote:
Belt tightening is one thing but this is environmental suicide.
Savings can no doubt be made but axing the whole commission?
Madness! The New Forest is neglected by visitors as it is - without maintenence it will be destroyed.

I think you will find that if you leave the forest to be a forest nature will take good care of it. To be neglected would give it the rest it needs. It does its own maintenance, its called composting.

.. er, not so.
The NF is and has always been a managed environment.
Leave it to "nature" and you eventually end up with an impenetrable jungle.
Almost all of Britain was thickly forested shortly after the retreat of the ice age and it is entirely down to our management (or in many cases mismanagement) that our countryside, including the NF, looks like it does today.

About time ! These jumped up 'officials' have basically made doing anything in the forest a no-no.

Let's hope whoever takes over is a bit more pragmatic, oh and can they get shot of those Caravan club people who run all the campsites as well.

"Deputy Surveyor Mike Seddon, the organisation's most officer in the Forest..."
Perhaps he means "moist officer" given today's weather...

Forest Resident wrote:
Of the two official bodies concerned, The New Forest National Park Authority (NPA) have only been around a few years and are a controversial, ineffective and costly quango of an organisation to put it politely! The Forestry Commission on the other hand have been around for decades and do a thoroughly fantastic job managing the forest in a subtle yet effective manner, isn't it obvious which is the more likely candidate for the chop???

Spot on!! It would be ridiculous to get rid of the FC, NPA can go tomorrow and it would be beneficial. Scrap them not the FC!

Forest Resident wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Bam Boozler wrote:
Belt tightening is one thing but this is environmental suicide.
Savings can no doubt be made but axing the whole commission?
Madness! The New Forest is neglected by visitors as it is - without maintenence it will be destroyed.

I think you will find that if you leave the forest to be a forest nature will take good care of it. To be neglected would give it the rest it needs. It does its own maintenance, its called composting.

Not so i'm afraid, as natural and beautiful as the New Forest is, the reality is that it is almost entirely man made and therefore requires management and maintenance to keep it in its current state as a flourishing and thriving forest. Without human intervention it would quickly become overgrown and in places dangerous to the visiting public.

very true about the new forest,it is a man made forest, before this forest was made it was all moor land. trees was planted by king william i to make a royal hunting ground and is only one of a few that he had made.

I don't know where 145 square miles come from, perhaps only the New Forest but to put it in context, the Commission' own website states that the FC and FS own 1617000 hectares which is 6250 square miles, and is not some penny-ante operation...

It has always been said that the tories know the price of everything but the value of nothing!

Defra can hardly be seen as more efficient than the FC given their history. It would be like leaping from the frying pan straight into the furnace...I cannot anticipate any improvement in service, access or facilities as this activity would get lost among all the other departmental responsibilites...ma
dness, pure madness and driven only by the need to save money in the short term regardless of the medium or long term results...!

Charge commoners. i have to be responsible for myself and my hounds on the forest,seems unbeleivable that you can 30-50 head of livestock on the forest in 2010 and not be held to account for there roaming.

charge horse riders.you have to pay to fish,why not £30 a year for upkeep of the bridleways (60p a week).

charge for a visiters pass.£5 for a weeks pass for a family seems fair to me

Nothing is for free anymore.£10 per household per annum for full forest access is peanuts.

If its not paying for itself.lets pay to use it (NOT PARKING FEES).Its an amazing place.lets look after it

bigmonkeyman wrote:
Charge commoners. i have to be responsible for myself and my hounds on the forest,seems unbeleivable that you can 30-50 head of livestock on the forest in 2010 and not be held to account for there roaming.

charge horse riders.you have to pay to fish,why not £30 a year for upkeep of the bridleways (60p a week).

charge for a visiters pass.£5 for a weeks pass for a family seems fair to me

Nothing is for free anymore.£10 per household per annum for full forest access is peanuts.

If its not paying for itself.lets pay to use it (NOT PARKING FEES).Its an amazing place.lets look after it

.. and why not JUST parking fees.
As you say "Nothing is for free anymore"

Incedently..Whats on the front of the echo today about deer being shot??!!Surely if the forretry commision is closed down more harmless wildlife would suffer from poachers...

wilson castaway wrote:
Incedently..Whats on the front of the echo today about deer being shot??!!Surely if the forretry commision is closed down more harmless wildlife would suffer from poachers...

Harmless wildlife tastes good in sausages! :)

not from evil poachers mind, those that have a license to "kull" obviously only kill the agressive deer

All for privatisation of the FC, if it make's money they will have no bother selling it off.

It's just one more step towards Sharia lore.

If the sale of the FC goes ahead it will be another stupid decision by the coalition that will only add to their growing unpopularity.
.
The FC do a tremondous job. They are Forestry professionals tasked over the years on a limited budget. Any sale would be economic and an environmental madness.