"Forest Service are not going to take an active role in mountain bike development"

[MTBrider]

"Forest Service are not going to take an active role in mountain bike development"
John Joe O'Boyle. Operations Directorate Forest Service

On Saturday 17 December over 70 mountain bikers and interested parties attended the hastily arranged Forest Service consultation meeting on mountain biking, considerably more than expected judging by the lack of chairs laid out. The big question on everyone lips was "Is this a meeting to pay us lip service and stop us writing letter to Lord Rooker? (MTBrider has been VERY active on this front in the last few months) or have FS actually got something new to bring to the table?

Forest Service set the agenda for the meeting and the first half consisted of "views from the floor", after nearly 90 mins of views from the floor which consisted largely of people asking Forest Service what proposals they had for mountain biking in OUR forests, it started to become obvious: As expected Forest Service had nothing new to say: no change in policy, no plan for a strategic development, no plan for the future.

The phrase "mountain biking is not in our remit was used on more than one occasion, in fact by the end of the meeting you'd be forgiven for thinking this was Forest Services new Mission statement. Then we had it in a nutshell: After repeated questions and a lot of evasive answers John Joe O'Boyle, Forest Service director of operations, gave us it straight, Forest Service are not going to take an active role in mountain bike development.

Tempers in the room started to fray and it was decided to be a good time for a break.

Back from the break it was noticeable that many had seen little point in continuing and had already left, not a good sign. Regardless the meeting pressed ahead in an attempt to find at least some common ground between the mountain bikers and Forest Service.

For their part Forest Service set out their reason for not leading a trail development strategy- Lord Rooker (head of DARD) has decided that any trails and facilities must be developed, funded managed and maintained by outside promoters! Put simply Forest Service have had their hands tied by a ministerial decision.

They then went on to explain some of the restricting issues they faced when allowing trail development in forests. The over riding issue being trails getting in the way of felling programs. It was suggested that a trail that runs through an area that is due to be felled in 2015 could possible need to be closed for as long as six months to allow the felling to take place. In light of this the trail would not be viable. "So because I might not be able to ride a bit of trail in 9 years time for six months you don't think it's worth building? Muppet!" was one comment heckled from the floor).

When challenged on this point, and the fact that English, Scottish and Welsh Forest Agencies all worked solutions to this issue, Forest Service simply stated our "Our forests are different to theirs"

In addition they cited such things as the small sizes of the forests, vfm criteria for taxpayers amongst other obstacles.

As the meeting started to wind down it was clear that as expected Forest Service had nothing new to offer us. Their position of the last 4 years has not changed: They won’t be embracing mountain biking and they won’t be building trails for off road cycling in forests, regardless of the fact every other forest agency in the UK now has an active trail development plan and is actively encouraging riders to their forests. For some reason Lord Rooker feels the people of Northern Ireland do not deserve equality with the people in England, Scotland and Wales. Regardless of whether Forest Service want to develop trails or not, they can’t, Rooker has decided this can only be done by outside promoters.

Whilst FS management reiterated throughout the meeting that mtb trail development was not in their current remit or business plan, many people in the audience made points that recreation and leisure should be in their remit and that trail development can only take place if FS are willing to work with other government bodies and organisations – something that has been sadly lacking so far.

So, who are these promoters? Anyone who wants to build off road cycling trails in Northern Ireland on Forest Service land. How do you do it? Guidelines are pretty sketchy, not even Forest Service could give any advice on this. But for a start promoters will need to design the trails, get funding, apply to Forest Service for permission to build, prove the trails are “worthwhile” and offer VFM to the tax payer and ultimately build them and manage them. A tall order for anyone, and a lengthy process: The CAAN proposal took years to put together, only to fail at the eleventh hours as Forest Service were not convinced the trails would work due to felling commitments.

At the close of the meeting it was suggested that MTBrider host a meeting of the interested parties attending the meeting to formalise a response for Forest Service. This request is being considered.

Whilst the meeting was short on outcomes it can only be seen as positive because;

1. The meeting is seen as the start of better communication between bikers’ groups and FS.
2. FS were told the obstacles to development can be overcome if they communicate with bikers, CAAN and funding providers.
3. FS saw that the demand for trails is a wide spread across NI.
4. FS were reminded that these obstacles have been overcome elsewhere in GB.
5. FS were left in no doubt that bikers are not going to give up the campaign for trail development in NI.


What next?

First of all no mountain biker has to accept the way Forest Service and Lord Rooker see the future of mountain biking in Northern Ireland. Whilst decisions have been made at ministerial level to remove Forest Service from a duty to provide MTBers in NI equality with riders in the rest of the UK, it is only that, a decision, and as we all know in politics in this day and age decisions can be changed, it just needs the right amount of pressure applied in the right way.

If you the mountain bikers of Northern Ireland agree that development should be left to outside promoters then riders need to start forming clubs, now. One funder at the meeting suggested some outside funding might still be obtained from Europe, but promoters need to move fast before all funding diverts to Eastern European countries.

What is for sure is that whilst trail development in the rest of the UK moves ahead in leaps and bounds, bringing with it all the benefits in terms of the populations health and rural development. Thanks to the short sightedness of Lord Rooker and the inability of Forest Service to see the forests they managed as anything more than a means to supply certain local timber mills with a raw product, the people of Northern Ireland are once again being treated as second class citizens compared to those living in other parts of the UK.

MTBrider will report back regarding the proposed meeting with interested parties in the new year.

[Pete 36]

I thought we were entering a new era in Northern ireland where "equality" was standard.



How about some "equality" for us against our counterparts in the mainland?

[tankslapper]

100% more of f 'all is still f 'all

[Rick]

Since the "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, sustainable development has been an international commitment. In relation to forestry management this means the sensitive and balanced management of forests to protect their health, vigour, productive and regenerative capacity, and their ability to produce a variety of economic, environmental, and social benefits for present and future generations. Sustainability in management and development will therefore be the one strategic goal which underpins all of the Agency's business planning processes for the forseeable future. This is a new and developing area where the principles and standards will evolve as knowledge grows through experience and research. The Agency will therefore review its overall strategy for delivering sustainability on an ad hoc basis as future developments dictate.

A review of forest policy in Northern Ireland and preparation of an updated long-term strategic vision for forestry is now in progress. It is expected that an agreed strategy will be in place during the year 2002, and this will influence the setting of agency objectives and targets in forward years.

The above is an example of just how slow FS works - their website states the strategy will be in place during 2002 --- .... seems like we are still waiting as we go into 2006

Not sure why but I guess it has something to do with the fact that it takes 30 years for trees to mature...

[Rick]

knowledge grows through experience and research

- about time we got to experience development to increase the knowledge...

[AndyL]

The example used to demonstrate why the CAAN proposal didn't work (due to difficulties encountered when felling) was Gortin. The proposal had three loops, covering around 45km in total. Now if one of those loops was closed even for 3 months due to the felling schedule (perfectly reasonable: FS have to fell, its what they do, and for obvious H&S reasons you cant have mtbers riding thru the felling area) then you still have 30Km of trails to ride! People would still go there to ride the open trails, there would be no loss of income to FS as we are not interfering with the felling, there would be continued revenue from the bikers and everyone would be happy. Or am I missing something. Even if the felling rotation meant that only two loops would ever be open, so be it! I'd still go there to ride! If you build it, they will come...

Also, do I remember JJO'B saying that if the capital for the trails was raised FS would look at applying for an increase to their budget for the maintainence side? I'm sure he mentioned that.

I will be writing to Lord Rooker, thanking FS for entering into this consultation process, but asking why FS have built extensive trails for walking, horse riding and orienteering, yet mountain bike trails are "not within the remit" of FS. A touch of discrimination there methinks.

Lets hope that in the review of FS policy currently underway, that Lord Rooker will increase FS's remit to include building the trails. As quoted from FS's own policy statement; "...produce a variety of economic, environmental, and social benefits for present and future generations". Sounds like properly built trails tick all those boxes, bringing economic benetits to rural areas, lessening our environmental impact on the forests by use of sustainable properly constructed trails, and bringing health and other social benefits for the population of NI.

Reading that again, I wonder why JJO'B thinks building the trails is outside their remit? Sounds to me like it is there in their PRESENT policy, and should be even more prevalent in the new revised policy document. Another question for Lord Rooker I'd say...

At least we are getting somewhere, and working with FS should allow us to produce a viable, acceptable proposal. It would of course be nice if FS would put forward a proposal of their own, but we seem to be going towards getting trails built, not further away.

[Rick]

I agree with what your saying - it isn't that Forest Service have to put forward a proposal more that Forest Service work with a group of interested parties to make it happen rather than sitting as judge and jury constantly beheading any proposals put forward for reasons that can be dealt with eg felling issues, maintenance.

Strange that they kept talking of value for money, taxpayers money etc when we all can see the value for money that the trails are creating everywhere else - why else would a government assembly like Scotland and Wales put significant amounts into the programme. Visitor centres costing £1 million are being built at some of the mtb centres, more than the whole programme would cost to implement here!

[Dalem]

This is great the FS is finaly taking us seriously by organising a meeting just for us mountain bikers, one big step to proper trails. The meeting turned into a bit of a mess by a couple of peoples ignorant attitude towards the FS, this just p'd me off and I'm sure the FS too. I think they were more of a hinderance than a help.

[Steveb]

Dale

Whilst I'm not entirely sure who you mean, I have my suspicions. For my part I've been dealing with FS on this issue for 4 years, 4 exceptionally frustrating years in which many many meetings have taken place, all with FS saying they are going to do nothing but in many different ways.

In this time I've learnt a lot about the language FS use, and also how to read between the lines. Yesterday I heard nothing new to what I've heard in the last 4 years. FS are not going to take an active role in building trails. That's wrong IMO.

I find at these meetings there are two types of people: Those who listen and accept what they're being told and those ho listen to what they're being told and challenge things they feel are not clear or simply don't agree with. I'm the latter, I;m guessing your the former. You get upset with the latter, I sometimes get upset by the former. Point is though we all have a valid reason to be at the meetings and a right to have our say.

Steve.

[chris_the_sham]

This is great the FS is finaly taking us seriously by organising a meeting just for us mountain bikers, one big step to proper trails. The meeting turned into a bit of a mess by a couple of peoples ignorant attitude towards the FS, this just p'd me off and I'm sure the FS too. I think they were more of a hinderance than a help.


bear in mind dale that if it wasnt for a stroke of luck we wouldn't have known about this 'public' meeting. i admit that i may have sounded agressive in some of my questioning but it did take nearly two hours for the agreement that we want trails. its taken 4 years to even get this far so things do need pushed along now

[marko]

what i found very interesting was that fs had no new things,proposals, ideas what ever you like to call it for us. It was the same old lines over and over again, ''mountain biking is not in our remit'' as steveb has said was used on a number of occassions. It was a simple answer to our questions. It effectively passed off the tough taxing questions that Mr O'Boyle could not answer. Although i feel that from this meeting it is clear that a number of off-road groups, clubs, bodies etc need to be formed in order to have a planned and carefully marketed argument towards Lord Rooker and the fs. Judging by the number of active members that there are on mtbrider we could form a sizeable group with key figures who communicate the groups views to the fs and Government. In effect we can lobby them as one body and not a group of muddled individuals. (The fs are a professional organisation so we must approach them in a professional manor)

[PeteMcD]

I really don't understand how mtb trails are NOT in their remit! And he didn't address this fully. Oh the frustration!

However the meeting did alleviate some misconceptions by both riders and the FS. At least we're both reading from the same book now....aren't we?

[Conor]

This is great the FS is finaly taking us seriously by organising a meeting just for us mountain bikers, one big step to proper trails. The meeting turned into a bit of a mess by a couple of peoples ignorant attitude towards the FS, this just p'd me off and I'm sure the FS too. I think they were more of a hinderance than a help.

The meeting turned into a bit of a mess by a couple of peoples ignorant attitude towards the FS, this just p'd me off and I'm sure the FS too.

There's allways going to be people that expect everything, straight away. And others that are content with what is available straight away, even if it's not what they really want (deep down). In the meeting JJO'B (eventually) stated that FS aren't going to take a leading role. Which we all knew, and this pisses a lot of people off, which is why there was a lot of frustration and anger vented at the meeting. Negotiations are never flawless, disagreements are all part of the game! I'm sure there will be plenty more like this, but hopefully each time we'll be getting closer to trails.

This is great the FS is finaly taking us seriously by organising a meeting just for us mountain bikers, one big step to proper trails.

I agree that FS attitude is positive, although it's not on par with the Forestry Commission in GB. Obviously we want this to change, but I do think we have to work with what FS have given us, and not be so confrontational with them. When they read these headlines and comments, they are going to be more pissed off with us, when we really want to be in their good books. They'll just think "those feckin bikers are never happy"... which is kinda true when you've got the Seven Stanes over the water and nothing here.

It's inevitable that there will be people that want to go in a certain direction and others that want to go in another. The important thing is we don't let any oppertunities slip past, even if they aren't ideal.

The sooner we have mtbers talknig together the better. hopefully in the New Year we can get something sorted. MTBrider has it's stance, same with the other groups there. What we must ensure is that the voice of ordinary mtbers is heard, not just the organised bodies. Hopefully we can get more people involved.

I'm with you Dale, I just want trails built asap, and the sooner we can get together and get things driving forward the better. Even if we have to do it ourselves, it's better than nothing. We just have to understand how FS work and what their attitudes are.

Basically mtbers and the potential funders/promoters need to stick together and get on with it and not get bogged down in the campaign to change FS policy. I see that as a long term goal, building trails in the short term is just as important.

[Bern]

JJO'Boyle's intrepretation of FSs remit is that they have no obligations to mountain bikers. The fact is that they're own terms of reference authorise's them to provide access. It DOES NOT clarify who should or should not get access. FS provide access (at a financial loss according to their currrent financial reports and accounts) to walkers and horse riders - so why not us?. The VFM / economic appraisal argument does not stake up - loads of government decisions would fail an economic appraisal - why else do we have roads / water / empty buses etc to remote areas/communities? The very fact that FS organised the meeting means that either the Minister or the Dept of Agriculture told them to do it to ease the pressure on the Minister. There is only so long that they can hide behind the 'not our remit' argument. Sooner or later FS will have to take an active role in trail development - the one thing that all mountain bikers have is stamina we just have to keep pushing and challenging them.

[Conor]

Yes, he kept talking about value for tax payers money. This is a little strange as FS won't be putting any of their budget into it, and any funding is likely to come from Europe. In my book the only people that should be concerned about value for money are the sponsers of the project. It's not FS's money, so why should they care so much about the economic and social returns vs costs of somebody else's budget? After all they are just concerned about timber producton, if the project doesn't interfere with this then why are they so worried about money that isn't theres and have no control over?

[Steveb]

When they read these headlines and comments, they are going to be more pissed off with us, when we really want to be in their good books

I don't think I could disagree with that comment more than I presently do.

People need to change their mindset: We are not asking for favours, or for FS to look on us favourably, we are not looking for special treatment or to be treated any different from any other large forest user group. We are looking for equality. No actually let me re-phrase that we are demanding equality. It is FS's duty to cater for our needs in forests. This is our right as taxpayers and people of NI. This is before you throw all the social/rural benefits into the equation.

It should not be us worried about upsetting off FS, it should be FS worrying about upsetting us, the people they are charged to serve.

At present they are blantantly trying to side step their responsibilties to us by a warped intrepretation of their own policy. This is not accpectable and I personally will not stand for it.

Regards accepting the little they are giving us? Conor, what have they actually giving? What has in real terms changed from Friday to today?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's fantastic that FS have finally opened a dialogue with MTBer's, but have you any idea how long it took and exactly what methods we had to employ to force them to just have this one meeting? (Actually Conor I know you know exactly what we had to do, you helped!) So tell me this: Do you think FS had the meeting on Sat because they genuinely want to move this issue forward or because they're boss told them to get us off his back?

(Sorry, ranting now).

Peace.

[Conor]

People need to change their mindset: We are not asking for favours, or for FS to look on us favourably, we are not looking for special treatment or to be treated any different from any other large forest user group. We are looking for equality. No actually let me re-phrase that we are demanding equality. It is FS's duty to cater for our needs in forests. This is our right as taxpayers and people of NI. This is before you throw all the social/rural benefits into the equation.

Yes, of course that's true. But are we not going to pursue the route that is open to us in the mean time? We could fight for years to get equality, but it may take a long time or may never happen. So shouldn't we pursue the other option in paralell? Like I said, it's not ideal but it's better than nothing. We should still keep up the pressure about policy, but I also feel like we should work for trails following the way FS want.

I'm just taking the middle ground on this one. I'm sure this will all be sorted in the new year when we get mtbers and interested parties to meet.

[Steveb]

Ya ofcourse, sorry if my post didn't agree with you on that. We should explore all opportunities open to us. But we need to be very careful that by going down to route FS favour (ie someone else doing all the work) we are potentially reducing the likely hood of FS ever taking a leading role, al la FC in GB.

Everyone I think agrees "MTB NI" needs a strategic approach with one government body taking the lead, and it makes sense for that government body to be the one charged with managing the forests (ie- FS). Local small scale building is great, but it's not a replacement.

BTW- These are all only my view, I do not speak for MTBrider nor do I set "policy" for MTBrider (getting all FS on yo ass now ;) ) Infact my personal views are normally completely different from those of MTBrider.

[Bern]

Well said Steve - you're right FS are Public Servants - they are our servants. FS bosses are the Department of Argiculture and the DARD Minister. DARD have a publically stated policy for Forest Service to follow and I quote 'Promote the use of forests for public access' - FS have a stated aim in their annual report - ' to promote access to and use of forests for recreational purposes' - that's it pure and simple - if we the public want access on a horse, by foot or on a mountain bike then FS have to meet our recreational and access needs. FS have a legal duty to meet our needs - FS manage the forests on OUR behalf and we are perfectly entitled to call them to account for their lack of leadership. I would challenge JJO'Boyle to put in writing (or in the minutes which he is going to take a month to produce and he talks about efficiency!) that FS has no remit with regard to MTBers gaining access to forests becasue if he does then we can take those words to DARD, the Minister and our own MLA's & MPs and ask the question 'what's going on?' - The only targets that FS met (as per their own report) were those on timber production which they actually exceeded - so they are actually felling and clearing more trees that DARD are asking them to - that's good practice eh?. The targets on promoting public access and recreational use were not met. If you look at their own accounts published this year - FS spent £1.54m on 'recreational activities' and had an income of £757k so they operated the recreational side at a loss, which begs the question -

Why did FS put so much emphasis and weight on the 'economic appraisal and business case' side of things during the meeting when they don't practice it themselves? (was this creative avoidance?)

and how much did FS spend on faciliating access for mountain bikers? Answer = NIL

They should actually be thanking us for coming to their rescue with innovative ideas for trail design and a list of funders and tourism orgs. who are backing our ideas. The fact is that not one of their arguments for doing nothing stands up to objective assessment.

We have a good cause and a sound business case for our aims. More importantly we have the stamina to see them through.

[Conor]

Ya ofcourse, sorry if my post didn't agree with you on that. We should explore all opportunities open to us. But we need to be very careful that by going down to route FS favour (ie someone else doing all the work) we are potentially reducing the likely hood of FS ever taking a leading role, al la FC in GB.

Totally.

The sooner we meet in person (everybody I mean...) the better, rather than argueing on a public site!

[andyh]

This is great the FS is finaly taking us seriously by organising a meeting just for us mountain bikers, one big step to proper trails. The meeting turned into a bit of a mess by a couple of peoples ignorant attitude towards the FS, this just p'd me off and I'm sure the FS too. I think they were more of a hinderance than a help.

Personally I think everyone's entitled to express their opinion. This was a public meeting the objective of which was to understand each others position.

I certainly didn't see it in the negative way you did, I note you are new, on this forum anyway, so perhaps you have a different perspective as you don't have the 4.5 years baggage of negotiating this deal hanging round you.

I think we all need to calm down and reflect on the meeting and keep these discussions at a face to face level.

[graeme]

dont u all be thinking that scotland was all antibiking similar to norn iron then suddenly the 7 stanes just appeared from nowhere

Mabie was initially Riks Red Route built by volunteers from Riks bike shed

Glentress started off pretty small as well

Also there are still volunteer trailbuilding days at GT, the Wormhole, all the Ewok village, some of the drops near the end and Secrets and Lies were all built by the trail fairies.

[malbekh]

Afternoon,

Did anyone mention to FS the current developments down in ROI? Coillte are putting in €2.5m between now and October 2006 to build these 3trails in Ballinastoe (North Wicklow), Killary (Mayo) and Ballyhoura Mountains (Cork/Limerick). The big one in Ballyhoura is 88km in three loops and is being built by Dafydd Davis.

The interesting part about this is that the whole execution in developing this project was a co-operative action by Coillte and Failté Ireland. Failté Ireland are putting up 80% of the funding to encourage a divergence in the type of tourist attracted to Ireland (we don't get too many MTB'ers) and the locations where they visit (not Temple Bar).

That's pretty impressive for companies that have had no effective dialogue with the MTB community. Indeed, the wider MTB community has only started to get heavily involved with Coillte after we got word of the new draconian bye-laws drafted for 2006 that will have a major impact on casual usage of Coillte lands by recreational users, including bikers.

We would be reasonably hopeful that the dialogue due to commence in early 2006 will open up officially sanctioned trails in Coillte lands built by and maintained by mountain bikers.

The negative spin, which is a time, knowledge and administrative issue, is that they expect 'us' to conform to IMBA accreditation on 'Rules of the Trail' and 'Leave no Trace' philosophies as well as organising a patrol system in hot spots to educate MTB'ers and other recreational users.

You're already far more developed in this process through Andy H and Andy B than we are, so I find the attitude of the FC perplexing. After all, the main elements of work, maintainance and education will be done by the MTB community itself to an internationally recognised standard.

My own personal opinion on why Coillte have become so pro-active on recreational activities (they have published a *really* expensive book on recreational strategy), is that they are planning for the future. They are part of FSC - the Forestry Stewartship Council - this is a regulatory body that gives accreditation to forestry bodies around the world. It's at ISO 14001 level. These bodies get an audit every year and an intensive one every five.

Pass the audit and you get your FSC stamp. Failure to get your stamp and you'll find that a lot of the mills around the world will refuse your lumber. The interesting thing is that the FSC is a strong advocate of renewable resources and access for recreational users into its members' forests.

Now I'm not saying that the two elements are connected, but I do believe that Coillte are aware that they have to be seen to embrace all reacreational users, even the ones with black reputations, in order to get them into the fold. Working with tourist boards and local enterprise companies (such as Ballyhoura) gives the impression that Coillte are taking things very seriously.

Now that the wider MTB community have woken up to the situation down here, we start to get the ball rolling on all levels next year. My interest in what's going on in NI, apart from the perspective of supporting you, is to rekindle the Mourne Mountains - Cooley Mountains cross border trail. while I wasn't involved in it, the investment available from the EU for cross-border initiatives is phenomonal. Particularly when used for sustainable tourism initiatives. If the FC's main problem is one of funds, and maintanance funding, maybe this is something CAAN et al. can look at again.

Otherwise, all I can say is that some dialogue is better than no dialogue.

[andyh]

dont u all be thinking that scotland was all antibiking similar to norn iron then suddenly the 7 stanes just appeared from nowhere

Mabie was initially Riks Red Route built by volunteers from Riks bike shed

Glentress started off pretty small as well

Also there are still volunteer trailbuilding days at GT, the Wormhole, all the Ewok village, some of the drops near the end and Secrets and Lies were all built by the trail fairies.

Not quite sure what you are getting at there mate but what I can relay about Scotland however is that Forest Enterprise (a department of Forestry Commission) is the key driving force behind all mountain bike trail development in Scotlands Public Forests. They have actively sought to engage and work with local mountain bike groups, but remain the accountable partner.

Riks red route greatly improved mabie but I don't think it was the first bike trail there.

GT basically contained nothing until FE did a public survey to find out how to attract more visitors to the forest.

Now that Karl Bartlett has moved from leading the 7 stanes project to become National Recreation manager I'm sure mountain biking facilities will continue to grow throughout Scotland.

If only we could get him to come over here.

[Bern]

[QUOTE=malbekh]Afternoon,

Now that the wider MTB community have woken up to the situation down here, we start to get the ball rolling on all levels next year. My interest in what's going on in NI, apart from the perspective of supporting you, is to rekindle the Mourne Mountains - Cooley Mountains cross border trail. while I wasn't involved in it, the investment available from the EU for cross-border initiatives is phenomonal. Particularly when used for sustainable tourism initiatives. If the FC's main problem is one of funds, and maintanance funding, maybe this is something CAAN et al. can look at again.

You are to be congratulated - Funding isn't an issue and the EU cross-border element is a potential goldmine in terms of tourism and rural economic regeneration - it's a lack of committment from FS to develope a Mountain bike access strategy in partnership with mountain bikers, tourism organisations and funders. They're own business accounts are telling them that tree felling is a dying industry with tighter margins every year. They seem unwilling to embrace change - they're still asleep up here!

[marko]

could anyone provide links to forestry sevices last yearly finicial statement, or is this not produced for the public to view??i am extremely interested as to how finicially sustainable timber production on such a small scale is. As pretty much everyone knows softwoods have a low finicial value.

[Conor]

The timber felling itself is costly with little return, the value to the economy comes from the technology added value of the products- i.e. timber processing, manufacture, the construction industry. That's why FS do it. But in reality the same economic benefits would arise if the timber was imported! The location of the primary activity doesn't effect the economic value of the secondary and tertiary processes.

[Mac]

FS Annual Reports here:

FS Annual Reports (http://www.forestserviceni.gov.uk/publications/annual_reports.htm)

[marko]

i was just interested as to how it was finicially viable. From research done today the only uses i have found for Northern Irish timber are low grade furniture, slates placed on a roof (thin lengths of wood on to which the roof tiles are hung) and scalfolding planks!!!

At times i wonder are the fs afraid to take a leap and grab the initiative. The worst case scenario is that the project runs out of funding and lies incomplete in their forests until further funding can be found. The best case scenario is that the project is successfully generating income for the fs, getting them Uk wide publicity and ultimately solving the problem once and for all.

[marko]

read that annual report. Some fascinating points in it:

-508,000 visitors, £1.5 million spent on maintenance, only £0.8 million recouped from visitors.

-''Timer prices remained depressed for most of the year and continued to squeeze the margins of our customers'' That doesn't sound sustainable to me!!!

-One of their objectives is: ''to promote access to and use of Northern Irelands forests'' Mountain bikers must not fall under that objective, we are not in their remit!!

-''Timber receipts are down £0.272 million on last year'' a dying industry i think.

By reading the forestry services own annual report i think i have just destroyed the argument they put towards us on saturday!

[irishdh]

bear in mind dale that if it wasnt for a stroke of luck we wouldn't have known about this 'public' meeting

Hi lads,
I didn't make it to the meeting myself but I have heard a lot of reports from it. Without a positive attitude and respect for the FS no-one is going to move forward on it.
On a more serious note just to let you know the FS did e-mail us a number of weeks before the meeting and asked us to publicise it.... I assumed they had done it with mtbrider too. I also made trips to 4 different forests in 4 different parts of the north in the past few weeks and it was clearly marked on the entrance to each forest... in fact i was quite impressed with the effort they made to publicise it.

[Steveb]

I don't think anyone was disrespectful to FS. I spoke with John Joe afterwards and we both agreed it was a successful meeting, neither parties felt disrespected or that any unfair comments were made. This meeting was always going to be heated, everyone knew and expected it, as it was I felt it was surprisingly reserved considering.

[Rick]

It is true they had made an effort to publicise the event - I received invite in the post and there were notices at the forests. They should be congratulated for that.

I think the excellent turnout at a meeting called with short notice the week before xmas also shows the commitment of thse who attended and those who were unable to towards seeing mtb development here in NI forests.

Nothing the FS said has changed my view that mtb devlopment of trails at FS locations could play a big and important role in NI across many fields - health leisure recreation tourism economic.

This is similarly the judgement of other parties I would imagine juding by the attendance of representatives from EHS, local councils NI events company and CAAN who should be applauded for the time they made to attend the meeting, as should FS for the officers from all the districts who also made an effort to be at the meeting.

Lets hope that 2006 sees a start to real dialogue and action! There is no reason why a trail could not be built and opened within the coming year.

[Drumlough]

I will be writing to Lord Rooker, thanking FS for entering into this consultation process, but asking why FS have built extensive trails for walking, horse riding and orienteering, yet mountain bike trails are "not within the remit" of FS. A touch of discrimination there methinks.

FS do not fund orienteering, nor take an active role in the development of orienteering. Orienteering maps which can cost up to k£5 for a new survey are funded through orienteering clubs and the NI Orienteeering Assocation. NIOA has recently completed a new tranche of maps through a lottery bid of almost k£100.

Orienteering has a healthy relationship with FS, built on mutual respect. Clubs are permitted free access to FS areas under the activity permit scheme, but do not receive financial support. There is no discrimination.

[AndyL]

FS do not fund orienteering, nor take an active role in the development of orienteering. Orienteering maps which can cost up to k£5 for a new survey are funded through orienteering clubs and the NI Orienteeering Assocation. NIOA has recently completed a new tranche of maps through a lottery bid of almost k£100.

Orienteering has a healthy relationship with FS, built on mutual respect. Clubs are permitted free access to FS areas under the activity permit scheme, but do not receive financial support. There is no discrimination.

I stand corrected on the orienteering point, thank you for your correction :o . It still remains that walkers were not asked to contribute/build their paths and did not have to pass the value for money criteria we are being asked to fulfil before we can build. FS saw building walking trails as within their remit, I will be simply asking where and why there is differentiation.

[chris_the_sham]

you may want to revise your home page address in your profile, declan?

[andyh]

bear in mind dale that if it wasnt for a stroke of luck we wouldn't have known about this 'public' meeting

On a more serious note just to let you know the FS did e-mail us a number of weeks before the meeting and asked us to publicise it....

They didn't contact us at mtbrider about it, and when we heard a rumour I spoke to John Joe the week before but he said they hadn't got the final details of time, date or location so he couldn't confirm it with me. Clearly there were conflicting messages coming out at the time.

I did get an invite in the post 4 days before the meeting.

I'm in absolute agreement that we should be going forward positively and with a sense of mutual respect.

[Speedfreak]

Well said Marko. I think the fs just couldn't be bothered doing something that means 'working' for mtbers, pure laziness on their part. I am sure many of you, if not all of you, have riden the trails in moneyscalp and tollymore and think they are great fun to ride, so why not develop on this? I am pretty sure anything I have to say on this issue has already been brought up so I won't waste time like the fs telling you all the same old story.

I was one of the people that left during the break of that meeting in castlewellan fp, and afterwards I was worried I would miss out on the fs throwing in the towel.....clearly not, after the strong comment made by John. I will still ride the trails in my area, regardless of what the fs says, as I see it as the only way to get through to the them, and i will not be stopped from mtbing. If they see that the mtbers in northern ireland are relentless in getting something done for them, and that they will not be excluded from everyone else in society from doing something they enjoy in their own forests, then maybe the fs will see that they will have no other option but to do something for us. But then again this has been the story over the past four years, so maybe not. It seems to me that the only way us mtbers will get trails in our forests is if we go out there and build trails ourselves. Some of you may think this is a bad idea as the fs may say that we are doing something we have been told not to do, well if the fs let us build trails and mtb then they wouldn't have that problem.

[marko]

the thing is we already build trails that are not allowed (illegal if you like) in fs forests (no mountain bikes allowed etc...), some of these trails are poorly maintained and therefore quite dangerous. Although by trying to work with fs or get permission to build trails by skilled trail builders that will be maintained we will solve our problems. At the moment i say keep building trails in quiet locations away from the public eye and keep their location secret.

[Speedfreak]

Fair point. But I fear that if we build trails in secret the fs will see this as, in a way, going behind their backs. Just wondering, is it prohibited to build trails in the forests, irrespective of where they are built? And on the issue of the felling of trees in the forests, are all the trees, in every forest, in all of northern ireland, going to cut down in the next 10 or 15 years?

[baz]

Just wondering, is it prohibited to build trails in the forests, irrespective of where they are built?Yes, you need to own land or have the land owners permission to build anything. Same as putting up a fence on your next door neighbour's garden. Unless he agreed, it's illegal and he's perfectly entitled to pull it down.

[Speedfreak]

But, as said in the meeting (so the fs understand this), we are taxpayers and it is the taxpayers who pay for this land. What are technicalities that mean we cannot have a decision on what happens in the forests? (Apart from Rooker)

[baz]

While it is the public who own the land, FS have the responsibility of looking after it and so they (or the minister for DARD) get to decide what happens on it. If anyone could do what ever they liked on it, chaos would reign.

In terms of why we can't have the decision, I don't think Rooker is the problem. He is the minister and so is only doing what the civil servants (who really run the country) tell him to do. Consequently, I'm certain that if Malcolm, John Joe and others in FS really wanted to see a trail development, it would be up and running very quickly.

[Speedfreak]

That's fair enough. Cheers for clearing that up for me Baz.

[baz]

I nearly sounded like I know what I'm talking about, don't I?!? I'll make a good civil servant yet.

[Conor]

Looks like Rooker will be going soon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4549374.stm

Hopefully the replacement will have some link to reality.

[marko]

if i am correct, was Rookers background not in banking and finiance???Therefore he is just a figure filling a role that he hasn't got the slightest idea about?!

[Speedfreak]

Here's one for everyone to think about - Why did the fs call a meeting to sort out this problem, yet did not have anyone that could answer our questions there and then? This was what frustrated me the most about the meeting, and I'm sure alot of yous as well.

[Speedfreak]

Maybe Baz could be the next Lord Rooker. Lord Baz...has a good ring to it, eh!

[Simon_M]

I nearly sounded like I know what I'm talking about, don't I?!? I'll make a good civil servant yet.
do you....

Drink lots of tea
Eat lots of biscuits
Fall asleap in meetings
Shirk any and all responsibilities
Avoid decisions
postpone commitments
Blamestorm
Procrastinate
etc

then i think your perfect ;)

[Speedfreak]

[QUOTE=Conor]Looks like Rooker will be going soon.

Maybe the fishing bored Lord Rooker and he wanted to focus on mtbing in NI.

NA! That's just silly.

[baz]

It almost sounds like you work with them a bit Simon ;)

[marko]

if according to reports lord rooker is to leave then any letters that we have wrote to him will be seemingly pointless. Although it will be a fresh face and oppourtunity to put our points and arguments across. Who knows they might actually be looked at properly this time and not thrown out the window. Fs are aware that we are here and so should the new man in charge.

[baz]

I don't think we should assume Rooker is about to leave just because the DUP say he should.

[Speedfreak]

Would the decision not be biased anyway, as the civil servants will still be putting forward the same suggestions? If Rooker did leave, anyone know who would take his position?

[tankslapper]

Baz

In letters from P.Gilmore (the departmental private sec) he alludes that 'Forest policy is devolved to each of the countries in the UK'.

If we look closely at this statement I believe it says it all. I personally believe that we have no assembly ergo how can we have a proper forestry policy to meet our 'particular circumstances and needs'

I for one question just who is in charge of policy? - Where certainly FS have a major role in it surely it would be up to the politicians in a devolved government to have the final say? If Gilmores/Rookers corespondence is correct what is being alluded to in N.I. is a situation of 'virtual economic sanctions' whereby because our politicians are not being good boys and girls the nice things we could all have are being denied.

This is a view shared by a number of leading politicians both here and in N.I.

Look at your own Department and indeed accross the Civil Service and what do you see? Low pay rises, moratorium on recruitment etc.

I could rant on about NI not being a third world dictatorship where economic sanctions are applied - but I wont! :rolleyes:

Anyhoo - I welcome FS's current line of dialogue and hope for a brighter more enlightened working relationship than previously witnessed.

TS

[Speedfreak]

Are you saying that we need to talk to politicians instead of the fs to get somewhere?

[tankslapper]

I believe so.

I think we are asking too much of the FS to change policies without the backing of a proper government - besides, once the assembly does sit wouldnt it be better to have politicians on our side?

I know a lot of MPS & MLA's have already been contacted but I think this is the best route to assist FS in making the correct policy decisions and ensuring equality for all recreational users.

TS

[marko]

tankslapper your right. At the moment lord rooker is just a figure head put here by the British Government to do a job until the assembly is up and running again. He is not going to make changes or alter anything drastically, he will tow the line. Therefore fs will not want to make life difficult for him by looking to change policy. They also have little backing in terms of government and are effected by the lack of assembly. I am sure that fs has plans of their own that can't go ahead as we have no assembly. By getting politicans on our side we are building a base for ourselves. If and when the assembly resumes we will have a voice inside it already.

[Rick]

I am sure that fs has plans of their own that can't go ahead as we have no assembly.

Yes to continue to do nowt but grow trees to chop down in 30 years time - that is all they would like to do.

[marko]

according to their annual report they want to increase the percentage area of northern ireland covered by trees and they are falling well short at the moment, this is partly due to a lack of money which would be provided by an assembly. anyway who cares about them cutting trees down!!!we want to ride through the trees!!!The reality is we will not go away, fs, politicians and rooker must learn this.

[Rick]

Anyone heard from Forest Service since the meeting re taking the Consultation forward?

I seem to remember that they were to post the minutes of the meeting up on their website - can't see them there myself - anyone else found them?

[andyh]

yeah and we were going to hold a meeting ourselves, will try and get something going. Weren't they going to send the meeting 'notes' to Steve ?