I urge Mark Harper to reconsider his position on the sell off of the forests. Such a move will be detrimental for the people he represents and the many visitors that come to our forests.

It is clear that in this matter he does not represent the views of his constituents and I fear that his political future may not lie in the Forest of Dean. Many of us will see that as a loss.

We all own and fund our forests through taxes. A fair system (never thought I'd say that about taxation) and we can all enjoy the benefits of free access. If this changes everything changes.

Access to the forests will almost certainly be lost. There will be no community ownership. The few who are willing and able to buy or fund the forest locally will come to resent its use by those who don't contribute and will choke access.

Loss of access will create a benefit cost to the NHS as outdoor activities may not be so easily and freely found elsewhere.

The Forestry Commission is the expert on managing our forests and its wildlife. It provides a standard and consistent approach in all our forests. The sell off will leave the fate of the forests and its wildlife in the hands of various people or consortia who might have little experience or interest in the proper management of the forests. They will not have a co-ordinated approach to management.

It is probable that there will be less maintenance with footpaths and fencing falling into disrepair. This will make the forests more dangerous. Access may be cut off to prevent any claims for injury through negligence because of poor maintenance.

Ancient woodlands, which are already under threat elsewhere, will have less protection.

Timber is not a short term investment. Harvesting has to be supported by planting for new growth. Assuming that development is not allowed, the only way for new owners to make a quick return is to remove timber without replanting. This will turn the forests into wasteland.

For others it will be a convenient pension plan. Is this really what the sell off is about providing a pension plan for the rich?

For these reasons, and no doubt there are many more, the removal of the forests from public ownership is a poor idea.

In addition in this time of austerity when we face many cuts and increases in taxes the government should leave us something that we are able to benefit from and enjoy freely. Our forests.

– Peter Prosser, Tutshill.