Letter: Should our woods stay public or is it right to sell them?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Should our woods stay public or is it right to sell them?
I was sorry to see Geoffrey Lean used as a mouthpiece for the Ramblers'Association's fact-shy propaganda on public forests. Enormous and increasing acreages of private woodland are open to the public. Public ownership of woodlands has been an economic and ecological disaster. It has swallowed vast subsidies that could have gone to the needy - all in the name of import substitution, an argument that makes no more sense for timber than it does for bananas. It has wasted huge areas of beautiful land with disastrous plantations of exotic spruce and lodgepole pine, with devastating effects on many moorland and woodland bird species. And the Forestry Commission tried hard to destroy the Caledonian pine forest, which was only saved by enlightened private landowners who resisted its blandishments.
Matt Ridley
Newcastle upon Tyne
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments