Why are people so against private involvement of our forests?
January 23, 2011 21 Comments
Private involvement in things is not automatically bad. Why the automatic assumption that private involvement in our forests should be such an awful thing to happen. Frankly there are many instances where private ownership can be much better than without private involvement. There are also many instances where private land is much better looked after than communal areas.
I have spend many hours making my front garden look nice. I enjoy it and I hope others do to. I live on a nice housing estate and right opposite me is a communal grassy area. That area is not looked after half as well as private land. Local kids just leave their rubbish on it. Dogs foul on it, and so on and so on. The communal area is worse than the majority of the privately owned land, and peope treat it worse than they do private land.
We all see it on estates where there is a bit of grass separate from a private garden next to the pavement. Many people don’t look after it because they feel no ownership over it and leave it to the local council, or even park on it, when they wouldnt on their own property
So yes, there are many examples of private land being tended better, often for the benefit of all. I was born and brought up in Chesterfield. The Chatsworth estate and gardens are far better than any park I know. They are privately owned, but the public can drive through and enjoy the countryside. Is that a terrible thing? No the Duke of Devonshire has done a much better job than any council of any political colour would.
In many cases the same can be said of farmers who look after the countryside for the benefit of us all.
I am not saying i would “privatise” forests, but when we hear that talking about private involvement is just the Conservatives being ideological, I would thrown back perhaps those objecting are being slightly ideological in their objections? Maybe a little private involvement could lead to improvements that benefit us all!