[Closed] A new Northern Forest

Shame it relies on a charity when billions cab be spent on a pointless train upgrade destroying woodland.

Good idea IMO although by my reading of it only some of it will actually be in The North as everyone knows that The North is above a line drawn from the mouth of the Mersey to the mouth of the Humber and a fair bit of the proposed forest will therefore be in The Midlands 😉

I read it’s all in the midlands.

Shame it relies on a charity when billions cab be spent on a pointless train upgrade destroying woodland.

Exactly Drac.

I had a quick look at the Woodland Trust website but couldn't find a press release.

Wait, what? The government is spending £5.7M. And the remaining £494.3M comes from charity?

Token gesture from a government desperate to do something - anything - not related to Brexit.

I'm also intrigued how this happens with the multiple thousand landowners and stakeholders...

Liverpool to Hull, doesn't sound Northern to me!

Wait, what? The government is spending £5.7M. And the remaining £494.3M comes from charity?

You need to consider where the charity money is coming from too though. I haven't seen any chuggers out in the high street shaking tins for trees - by far the biggest single source of funds for UK charities is... the government - over £13 Billion in local and central government grants and contracts (and up til now the EU). Individual giving accounts for less than half of the charity sector's income as a whole but its also largely focused of a small number of household name charity brands. The kinds of charities that would impliement these kinds of project are funded through grant applications and by winning public sector contracts. So its more likely that this new announced funding is adding to funds those charities are already receiving from other government channels

just to check, this [i]instead of[/i] the midlands engine and the northern powerhouse, right ?
Good move; it's what the peasants in the provinces understand
Course, HS2 can still go ahead. I believe they're planning walled citadels at a couple of the main stops so that'll be fine as long as there's a big enough troop deployment

I would imagine that in reality a large chunk of the money will come through woodland grants and environmental stewardship payments (eg. HLS or it’s sucessor funding model) - but of course these payments would go direct to landowners rather than the charity.

The UK has one of the lowest rates of woodland in Europe

*cough* Brexit. *cough*

We can have as little or as much tree cover as WE want. It's not a stupid competition to please EUseless MEPs.

The Polish government is also [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-41031299/will-primeval-biaowiea-forest-survive-poland-s-fight-with-the-eu ]standing up to the EU eco-bullies[/url] who are forcing them to stop logging some unpronounceable 'primeval' forest in THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

Tree-huggers are [i]bark[/i]ing. Always [i]pine[/i]ing for an imaginary unicorn-filled fairytale-foresty past that never existed. If you don't cut wood then it's dead wood. If nature is so great then why don't these nambypamby backwards-thinking EUnuchs go and live in a tree like Ewoks instead of their champagne-socialist loft-apartments in Belgium? They won't - because like all EUnuchs and tree-huggers they not only lack a pair but constantly remind us of the fact with their endlessly-repetitive high-pitched lamenting.

Plus, we have the best forests: Notts, Sherwood, Caledonia, Arden, New, and that's not including Centre Parcs or the many smaller uncounted forests behind shops and stuff.

We don't need to 'compare' with EUwoks, thanks. We did fine before we joined the EU, and we'll do fine without it. Better even. Agreed, trees have their place. But putting our own people first is a priority. Look after our own and our own will look after the garden. Tried and tested.

I had a quick look at the Woodland Trust website but couldn't find a press release.

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2018/01/new-northern-forest/

So this game any the same National Forest up Leicester way is it? Nope, a new one a bit further north.

Well I’ll support any environmental change to encourage greener spaces and put back the majority of trees we as humans have devastated over the last 100 years.

But it’s a pittance £6m, wouldn’t buy you a tractor and a chainsaw and 20blokes for a year even ignoring the seedlings..

The publicity release is targeted at the MrMagoo frightened village idiots, perfect headline for the “whaling daily” to proclaim “UK to return to 16C homestead”
That’ll appease em’

Does that feel better Malvern? 😆

Well I’ll support any environmental change to encourage greener spaces and put back the majority of trees we as humans have devastated over the last 100 years.

To be fair, the last 100 years have seen huge increases in woodland cover in the U.K. - post WW1 it was at 5% (Forestry Commission formed 1919 to tackle this and supply a strategic reserve of timber)

Whether it was all decent/positive woodland cover is a different question - and where the % figure becomes largely irrelevant. Then we hear ill-guided assaults on non-native trees (ie. most conifers) when in reality the places we’ve grown trees are often the problem, few tree species will grow there (certainly not to an economically viable forestry standard anyway) but the broad based lashing out at non-native species out of a hatred of monoculture Sitka has seen the babies bring thrown out with the bathwater - the loss of some lovely big old Douglas fir and ridiculous things like planting oak in upland valleys in the last vestiges of red squirrel populations.

This also ties in with post-war agricultural and social change, reduction in commoning (many of which have subsequently developed into woodland, and which we are actively cutting down trees from to restore heathland) habitats) add 8n the loss of orchards, removal of hedgerows and hedgerow trees etc.

Essentially - done right, trees are a huge force for good, but as with so many things, it risks be8ng hijacked by the charity industry and single issue groups.

I'm also intrigued how this happens with the multiple thousand landowners and stakeholders.

Enjoying the discussion, thanks. 8)

TBH I think forest named a “forest” should change its name to “large wooded area” apart from the North West Borland and Lake District most of the UK has large wooded areas, suppose the FOD should be included as a forest.. but the New Forest is definitely not a Forest more a name of an area.. maybe they ought to re-name it New Bit of Woodland Here and There.. 😉

Bikebouy 😆
I don't think the name change suits it .." Kielder Large Wooded Area"..
Those piddly forests you have named pale in comparison ..

Keilder, now that does substantiate the name Forest.
😆

To be honest I read it as "massive expansion of dog toilet facilities"

The organisations involved don't want MTB access, they just want nice drive to facilities for dogs to toilet in

maybe they ought to re-name it New Bit of Woodland Here and There.

Congrats dissonance, got in just ahead of me, but to back him up the definition of a forest is originally land that was set aside for hunting and was outside (from the Latin foris - dontcha just love wikipedia) the rules and tenets of the common law. Introduced by those dastardly Normans apparently and defied by many including Robin Hood (allegedly).
Point being I guess that the term Forest is more about the designation of the land and how (And for what) it is utilised than whether or not it has trees on it per se..

Is Wood not just derived from Old English and Forest the Norman name for the same thing?

As mentioned it’s not really anything to do with size which is why those little copses in the Lakes can be called a forest.

Edit: It would appear it’s a mixture of what Funk and Dissonance say plus it’s just the Norman name. So traditionally Norman hunting areas that had a few trees in them too.

It's going North so us Northern peasants can be employed as beaters for the upper crust foxhunting Southerners. 😛

There is this:

Thanks [b]slowoldman[/b] didn't occur to me to look in their blog for a press release!

Will the public/user groups be involved/consulted I wonder?

Edit:

Essentially - done right, trees are a huge force for good, but as with so many things, it risks be8ng hijacked by the charity industry and single issue groups.

[b]ninfan[/b] do you think the Woodland Trust can do a good job?

I thought tree planting in these situations was out of date and the preferred more successful method was natural regeneration by restricting access until new growth has taken place.

This is more of a woodland trust idea than a govt one. they (wt) have been buying forest at a massive rate in the last 20 years. Primarily, they're a charity but their aim is to restore ancient and native woodlands: oak, ash etc. They're not necessarily focussed on more open access for the general public. I think the rationale for this is that softwood plantations from the early 20th century are going for chipboard; the quality isn't there for the building trade. Ergo softwood hasn't been replanted. My concern is the WT need lobbying by user groups to represent a case.

You need to consider where the charity money is coming from too though. I haven't seen any chuggers out in the high street shaking tins for trees - by far the biggest single source of funds for UK charities is... the government - over £13 Billion in local and central

This isn’t the case with the Woodland Trust however. They’re heavily focused on membership subscriptions.

However, this projects funding could easily fall into another income stream.

Also, the statutory funding of charities is heavily skewed by housing associations.

Edit; single biggest source of donations is actually legacies. I’d hazard a guess former members form the overall majority.

Yea, its surprising how much money they've been bequeathed and how many forests they have bought. I wouldn't leave it up to the wt to make trails though!

I don’t think it’s that much in terms of legacy income. I think the U.K. would see something like £2 to £2.5 billion in legacies a year.

I wouldn't leave it up to the wt to make trails though!

Bit OT, but why would the Woodland Trust be interested in Trail Building. I don’t really know a lot about them but building trails doesn’t really seem to fit their purpose?

WT is a bit of an anomaly. maybe a lot of rich farmers leave money in their wills?!! Anyhow I met the CEO once so am up for lobbying an MTB case. anyone else up for it?

WT is a bit of an anomaly

Genuine interest. But why are they an anomaly?

Don’t know much about them myself but I can’t see anything notably unusual about them

No idea. They tend to approach people directly - go to country shows and the like and use the media to generate interest. Probably something to do with the lifespan of trees means you're always acting for future generations.

WT is a bit of an anomaly

But why are they an anomaly?

No idea

Ok, thanks.

Bit OT, but why would the Woodland Trust be interested in Trail Building.

They aren't, they are the smug, take your dog for a dump in the woods charity

😆

Years ago I was a member, before I saw the light obviously.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/northern-forest-to-have-massive-chip-on-its-shoulder-20180108141916

😆

They're not necessarily focussed on more open access for the general public.

The Woodland Trust, and to a lesser extent the Wildlife Trust, are very closed, self serving charities that like to exclude those that aren't like them. In our local woods both seem more interested in spending money putting up signs telling people why they shouldn't be there (based on spurious science) and putting up fences to keep people off paths. They aren't interested in letting people enjoy the nature they are preserving.

If they're involved, I suspect they'll make a balls of this. Of course, this depends on them having a spare half a billion pounds knocking about. A total Tory balls up all round 🙄

based on the govs failure to deliver on planting trees in their last 2 manifestos, does anyone think this will even come close to being a reality?

we already lag so far behind, other EU countries and import much of our timber from France & all over

add to that the jaw dropping incomptence of May & co and this is just so much fluff

[img] [/img]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41551296

we already lag so far behind

Just because somewhere has less of one thing, doesn't always make it a bad thing. Nobody goes to Egypt and fails to see Luxor because of the trees in the way and wishes their view was properly spoiled, or breaks down in tears at the sight of endless bulb fields in Holland wishing for some nice Sitka instead. Not every statistic is a contest.

Doncaster-based oak Roy Hobbs said: “I expect down south the trees think we’re a bunch of thick deciduous bastards who’ve never heard of nature trails or picnic areas.

“Well let me tell you this. I’ve just had a dead branch removed by the Forestry Commission using a state-of-the-art Bosch trimmer vehicle.

“We may not grow in fancy London parks but we’ve got a sense of community. Trees round here would give you their last acorn if you asked. You wouldn’t get that in the New Forest.”

😀

Essentially - done right, trees are a huge force for good, but as with so many things, blah blah blah blah blah

Far too difficult to understand.

Trees are good, trees are good, whatevertrees are good. Think Shamen.

That's better.

They aren't interested in letting people enjoy the nature they are preserving.

Of course not. People turn up and walk all over their carefully managed bits of wild nature.

Not every statistic is a contest.

You'll never make it as a politician.

They aren't, they are the smug, take your dog for a dump in the woods charity

They aren't interested in letting people enjoy the nature they are preserving.

IME they do an OK Job, when your priority and funding is towards restoring, planting and managing forests. IME they do access when funded to, but no more than they have to.

IME they do an OK Job, when your priority and funding is towards restoring, planting and managing forests. IME they do access when funded to, but no more than they have to.

They do access that suits their demographics, this explains why despite all the evidence of disruption to flora and fauna they promote their woods as dog toilets and keep other users out

They are the Daily Mail version of an environmental charity

AFAIK the word 'forest' originally meant 'wild area'. So often full of trees in lowland Britain, but not in the uplands.

Places like Forest of Bowland, Milburn Forest or Fforest Fawr probably never had trees over most of them.

Hey Rusty_Spanner, please don't confuse the New Forest with the rest of the South. As a Southerner I really don't want to be lumped in with parochial detritus who hate and harm cyclists who dare enter into their fiefdom.

The Woodland Trust, and to a lesser extent the Wildlife Trust, are very closed, self serving charities that like to exclude those that aren't like them

When I saw Michael Gove announce this as part of a "Green Brexit" I realised instantly it was a sham piece of misdirection to stop the Toby Young story rattling on in the media.

I was down in my local woods this morning walking the dog and spent 45 mins collecting bottles of echo falls summer berries and lambrini , the council are trying to hive it off to charity run organisation apparently to save them £4.50 a year on running costs. Cant see that stop the local toe rags spending winter nights chugging fizzy.

Anyhow, I digress...

Which was what a forest originally was in the UK.
It meant an area of land under forest law. Which is a bit tautological admittedly.
It was used for hunting areas by the King and I think a few select nobles also got areas. So was always a mix of woodland and open area to aid hunting.

Up to a point, Lord Copper.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/forest.htm

There is no "wildlife Trust". The wildlife trusts (plural) exist to manage local nature reserves.

However some of the smaller woods are a lot better.

In my local woods the Wildlife Trust's main objective is to put up laminated signs telling you to keep out, a couple of boards telling you about wildlife you might see there and fences to keep you out. The Woodland Trust just put up fences in their neighbouring wood. No concept of "the countryside for all" at all.

cinnamon_girl - Member
Hey Rusty_Spanner, please don't confuse the New Forest with the rest of the South. As a Southerner I really don't want to be lumped in with parochial detritus who hate and harm cyclists who dare enter into their fiefdom.

Good Mash article CG, obviously written by a Northerner.
I was laughing at myself.....
🙂

Spent some time in the Forest of Dean this year CG, very pretty down there, lovely people too.
Very different to your lovely bit of the world, but just as beautiful.

In my local woods the Wildlife Trust's main objective is to put up laminated signs telling you to keep out, a couple of boards telling you about wildlife you might see there and fences to keep you out. The Woodland Trust just put up fences in their neighbouring wood. No concept of "the countryside for all" at all

Unfortunately that's the same story round my way too. The only things they seem to do well is build mile upon mile of fencing.

Imo any tree planting can only be good.
However where we live they are tearing down ancient woodland at an alarming pace. Then proudly telling locals that 1,000s of saplings will be planted in the next few years, all in the name of progress ( new road building). 🙄

Is it longterm hardwood leafy glade open woodland or intensely grown softwood with no place for people or light?