Obviously. We have no real rights of access to most natural (as far as any woodland in England is actually natural) areas in England. And the landowners will make sure it stays that way.
JackStrawWitchita on
Even existing woodlands are mostly inaccessible to people reliant on public transportation.
Psittacula2 on
The UK has enormous range of footpaths with right of way however.
Woodlands left alone for Nature is probably a positive outcome.
The problem is more a scale problem of populations which rely on National Parks, so the obvious solution is:
1. Larger National Parks
2. More National Parks
3. Afforestation of the above increase in area to which:
4. Greater public access to woodlands is achieved.
Note importantly with present woodland stock: A majority is small woodland slices which are NOT suitable for public access given the size is already small with negative impacts on species populations in woodlands before disturbance and noise.
The Guardian article as ever conflates:
* Woodlands have immense wellness benefits to humans
* General state of woodlands (eg low 13 rising to 16% in England iirc) of land and the composition eg small coppices, plantations of conifers about 7% of the above and not especially appealing to walk through vs mature Deciduous).
Misframes the personal and emotional with the scale involved as above to resolve the disparity.
aethelberga on
Why, because they’re on land that’s been privately owned by the same family since the Norman conquest?
Both-Silver-8783 on
Good! Better for the wildlife if people aren’t trampling and often littering where they live. When we moved into our village we joined the local ramblers and were appalled at their sense of entitlement. The best thing landowners can do is put up signs saying ‘KEEP OUT.’ We had friends who owned a house with five acres and a designated footpath through their land. They learned quite quickly many people can’t follow the signs and nearly all of them can’t even read maps. People banging on their windows asking for directions. Even worse people walking through their vegetable patch and arguing it was their right to do so, when the next turnstile was in full view and in the opposite direction. Walking four or five abreast through a farmers field destroying a lot of his growing crops. Mostly townies seem to think the countryside is some sort of gigantic theme park
Reezla on
Good. Hopefully it can stay litter, graffiti, and vandalism free then.
Short_Scheme1793 on
Yeah, good. People are garbage and have a complete disrespect for everything. I’m glad the public can’t access the majority of woods.
LSL3587 on
Given the amount of damage some humans do to nature – litter, fires, disturbing wildlife, killing wildlife, damaging trees and plants etc, – then seems giving parts of nature a break from humans is a good thing.
TheRebelPercy on
Because they who owned the land 1000 years ago, still own the land.
They then influence parish councils, local councillors and MPs ensuring the status quo is kept.
They then use public money to make improvements to the land that they have ravaged and depleted for centuries for their own financial gain.
B0797S458W on
Good. The woods that are publicly accessible are very different places from those that aren’t, for the worse.
RustyBasement on
Good. Have you seen what the general public do when they do have access? They litter and allow their dogs to roam off a leash, don’t pick up dog poop and if they do they leave it in a bag in a tree.
We already have a huge network of footpaths and bridleways etc so there’s little need for more.
Technical-Mind-3266 on
And I think that’s for the best, leave the woods to do their own thing.
As soon as we start introducing people into nature they tend to mess it up.
I can imagine that all the creatures and bugs and plants are rather happy that they don’t have people trudging through their lounge and leaving litter everywhere.
No_Branch_5083 on
I’m a woodland manager and public access to woodlands is a nightmare. My most publicly accessible wood is filled with little, dog shit, barbecues, and random damage.
Nature is depleted enough already, people should stay the hell out of woodlands.
boingwater on
Good. It’s not a bad thing to keep humans away from other creature’s habitats. We have a tendency to destroy them for our own benefit, however well intentioned that may be.
tfhermobwoayway on
Good. If we let the general public access the woods then they’d be completely trashed in a week.
requisition31 on
..That is how private property works.. at least in England and Wales.
Ok_Speech_3709 on
I think it’s a good thing! Undisturbed natural ecosystems….trees and wildlife.❤️
ForwardLavishness379 on
It’s frustrating how much of our natural landscape is locked away. We definitely need more and larger protected areas with proper public access, not just tiny, fragmented woods. Getting the balance right between conservation and public enjoyment is the real challenge.
20 commenti
Bolt-cutters are relatively inexpensive and trespass is not a criminal offence.
Good
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y47xjzp48o](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y47xjzp48o)
Obviously. We have no real rights of access to most natural (as far as any woodland in England is actually natural) areas in England. And the landowners will make sure it stays that way.
Even existing woodlands are mostly inaccessible to people reliant on public transportation.
The UK has enormous range of footpaths with right of way however.
Woodlands left alone for Nature is probably a positive outcome.
The problem is more a scale problem of populations which rely on National Parks, so the obvious solution is:
1. Larger National Parks
2. More National Parks
3. Afforestation of the above increase in area to which:
4. Greater public access to woodlands is achieved.
Note importantly with present woodland stock: A majority is small woodland slices which are NOT suitable for public access given the size is already small with negative impacts on species populations in woodlands before disturbance and noise.
The Guardian article as ever conflates:
* Woodlands have immense wellness benefits to humans
* General state of woodlands (eg low 13 rising to 16% in England iirc) of land and the composition eg small coppices, plantations of conifers about 7% of the above and not especially appealing to walk through vs mature Deciduous).
Misframes the personal and emotional with the scale involved as above to resolve the disparity.
Why, because they’re on land that’s been privately owned by the same family since the Norman conquest?
Good! Better for the wildlife if people aren’t trampling and often littering where they live. When we moved into our village we joined the local ramblers and were appalled at their sense of entitlement. The best thing landowners can do is put up signs saying ‘KEEP OUT.’ We had friends who owned a house with five acres and a designated footpath through their land. They learned quite quickly many people can’t follow the signs and nearly all of them can’t even read maps. People banging on their windows asking for directions. Even worse people walking through their vegetable patch and arguing it was their right to do so, when the next turnstile was in full view and in the opposite direction. Walking four or five abreast through a farmers field destroying a lot of his growing crops. Mostly townies seem to think the countryside is some sort of gigantic theme park
Good. Hopefully it can stay litter, graffiti, and vandalism free then.
Yeah, good. People are garbage and have a complete disrespect for everything. I’m glad the public can’t access the majority of woods.
Given the amount of damage some humans do to nature – litter, fires, disturbing wildlife, killing wildlife, damaging trees and plants etc, – then seems giving parts of nature a break from humans is a good thing.
Because they who owned the land 1000 years ago, still own the land.
They then influence parish councils, local councillors and MPs ensuring the status quo is kept.
They then use public money to make improvements to the land that they have ravaged and depleted for centuries for their own financial gain.
Good. The woods that are publicly accessible are very different places from those that aren’t, for the worse.
Good. Have you seen what the general public do when they do have access? They litter and allow their dogs to roam off a leash, don’t pick up dog poop and if they do they leave it in a bag in a tree.
We already have a huge network of footpaths and bridleways etc so there’s little need for more.
And I think that’s for the best, leave the woods to do their own thing.
As soon as we start introducing people into nature they tend to mess it up.
I can imagine that all the creatures and bugs and plants are rather happy that they don’t have people trudging through their lounge and leaving litter everywhere.
I’m a woodland manager and public access to woodlands is a nightmare. My most publicly accessible wood is filled with little, dog shit, barbecues, and random damage.
Nature is depleted enough already, people should stay the hell out of woodlands.
Good. It’s not a bad thing to keep humans away from other creature’s habitats. We have a tendency to destroy them for our own benefit, however well intentioned that may be.
Good. If we let the general public access the woods then they’d be completely trashed in a week.
..That is how private property works.. at least in England and Wales.
I think it’s a good thing! Undisturbed natural ecosystems….trees and wildlife.❤️
It’s frustrating how much of our natural landscape is locked away. We definitely need more and larger protected areas with proper public access, not just tiny, fragmented woods. Getting the balance right between conservation and public enjoyment is the real challenge.