 Poster: A snowHead
|
Irrespective of the wider travesty of selling off our forestry, which will harm cycling, walking and orienteering interest what about the impact on snowsports ?
Whilst it may not seem that this will affect skiing I wonder what guarantee we would have that we could still access these areas on ski when we do get snow? Sale of the state forest would certainly not go down well north of the border where extensive use of the public forest is made for cross country and sometimes even downhill skiing eg. at Glenmore, Cairngorm. Fortunately for them it is only being pursued in England.!
We already enjoy a right of access on ski (and presumably snowboard) to much of upland England, but this currently excludes forestry. However within the Forestry Commission estate public access is widely encouraged and facilitated, so I could easily imagine a situation where a private owner prevented all access or made it as difficult as possible.
Anyone else have any thoughts about this ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Peter S, Im not actually sure what to make of the media stories about this, I generally feel that the FC do a very good job and that the national forests are worth keeping in FC ownership but Im not sure that the doomsayers are totally right about access being lost?
I presume that most trails, paths etc will be public rights of way and as such the public would still have acess in the same way you do over farmland where paths and rights of way exist?
Does anyone know what the status of the FC access trails and routes is. Is it the case that if acess has been allowed for over 12 years then, any route can be claimed as a right of way??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Hello Kevin,
I'm afraid that most forest paths and trails are not public rights of way and are not covered by the Access to the countryside legislation. The FC have a corporate objective to encourage public access and have provided access and facilities largely free to the public and to a very high standard indeed. The forest estate has changed beyond recog
There is absolutely no guarantee that a private operator would do this and every liklihood that they would charge more and provide less access. Think of all that mountain biking infrastructure that has gone in largely for free.
Its not good news. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Peter S, mmmmm so the situation is as bad as it is being painted? not good at all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Even where paths are public rights of way, for footpaths that only permits you to walk along them. Many FC forests are used for mountain biking, including training and racing, that could all be lost. I don't beleive that you be entitled to cross-country ski along a public footpath either.
At present forests provide an important leisure facility, and much of that could easily be lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I believe this just affects England, the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies are not taking this particular path. I think this is a hard one to sell on the "saving money" front as total annual cost is about 30p per person per year if I heard correctly. Looks like another example of the coalition using the deficit as an excuse to dismantle a state run institution for idealogical reasons (/end Trotskyist/Leninist rant)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More family silver being pawned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
so I could easily imagine a situation where a private owner prevented all access or made it as difficult as possible.
|
or started charging for access where there is established leisure use eg mountain bike trails (coed y brenin?), rambling routes etc. How about £20+ for a day ticket. Many snowheads argue that is good value for a skipass (don't shoot the messenger  ) Lets see, thats a family ticket of £80 to go cycling for the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
linso, well to make things clear, when you buy a ski pass here you are buying the right to use the uplift, not paying access the mountain. Folk are free to make their own way up the mountain and ski back down if they so wish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| linso, well to make things clear, when you buy a ski pass here you are buying the right to use the uplift, not paying access the mountain. Folk are free to make their own way up the mountain and ski back down if they so wish. |
And we are free to access all forests, wild or managed, whether publicly or privately owned.
I tried explaining that to an English gentleman deerstalker a few years ago when he stopped his Range Rover & demanded to know what I was doing running along a firetrack in a forest near Moffat. He was probably a bit confused by my (also) English accent but when he refused to accept that he had no exclusive rights to be there, he soon got the hang of the short words that followed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
or started charging for access where there is established leisure use eg mountain bike trails
|
£6/day parking fee currently @ FC places. OK not everyone is going to park up there, but many will and do
Sounds Welsh to me, so not specifically affected, but ofcourse there are others that might be.
Many place are privately owned and have community run management of access rights (eg Surrey Hills), although in that case if anything, the situation is made worse by freeloaders abusing rights (trespass?) by building their own trails without permission, away from the agreed paths, trails, etc., than it is by landowners putting up fences and keep out signs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well a victory for the people I think !
ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12488847
Now if we can get 100,000 into Trafalgar Square on say 4 or 5 consecutive Fridays, do you think we could overthrow our own despotic governent 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Peter S, I bet some rural conservatives were objecting so they reversed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Not had firm views one way or the other on this. I certainly want access to forests - but then again I am not sure that the government should be in the business of running them. However, there was a somewhat hysterical mass stampede of those who opposed - and I guess the government thought it simply wasn't worth taking them on. I was amused how Ed Milliband was wrong-footed at PM Questions yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
achilles, My thoughts entirely.
I wonder how the objectors will feel when an inefficient Forrestry Commission is now charged with making a profit from public access.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
moffatross,
| Quote: |
And we are free to access all forests, wild or managed, whether publicly or privately owned.
I tried explaining that to an English gentleman deerstalker a few years ago when he stopped his Range Rover & demanded to know what I was doing running along a firetrack in a forest near Moffat. He was probably a bit confused by my (also) English accent but when he refused to accept that he had no exclusive rights to be there, he soon got the hang of the short words that followed.
|
If he was actually deer stalking he may nhave had a point. I canot remember the precise legislation. But the right of access is not aabsolute at all times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
the idea seems to have been dropped now !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
T Bar, no, in this case he had no point other than that rooted in his own ignorance and his petty-minded loftiness. The right of access is absolute save for immediate health & safety factors & for privacy with respect to homes & gardens etc. The hunting / fishing code guidelines are an 'entente cordiale' if you like and its intent is to protect the interests of all parties in discrete areas at discrete times, not to blanket exclude visitors to vast estates for several days, weeks or months in succession. The guidelines apply to all parties so estate owners must make reasonable efforts to make visitors aware of the times and locations best avoided and the visitor must make reasonable efforts to make him/herself aware of the same.
The era of the old reliance on 'trespassers may be shot' signs is gone, both for the Lairds of the Glens and toffee-nosed Range-Rover driving Englishmen hoping to intimidate sweaty English runners whilst cruising along the firetracks of Forestry Commission owned plantations at 40 mph looking for a likely wooden shooting tower to sit in for a few hours. In the vast open moorlands of the Highlands that are administered directly by an estate owner, such activity is rather more obvious (parked 4x4's & stalking parties that can often be seen for miles by fellow humans let alone sniffed by red deer) but in a the depths of a forest, you've no idea what's around the next corner. In this instance in particular, the Forestry Commission (who sublet the shooting, fishing and forestry harvesting rights) would also be expected to be made aware of any signage that might be put in place and would expect it to be removed on the days when an activity is not taking place. Being as it is near impossible to administer such signage in the vast plantations (we're sometimes talking about discrete forests that cover the land area of Greater London, criss-crossed by a myriad of paths, clearings, firetracks and breaks) in the South of Scotland, the guidance from the estate stalking managers to deerstalkers is that visitors always have access rights and that hunters who challenge visitors in the way I described above are subject to instant revocation of their permits to shoot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
