Forestry Commission Tendering - South East England?

[boschboy]

Sorry if I am repeating a post?

Have been looking at some of the available plots of land on offer has anyone, have any experience with the FC in the South East of England? Is the available land generally any good? I know the guys in Scotland don't seem to be singing the praises of their available FC land.

I am a little puzzled by some of the requirements.

They also seem to require a DSC level 2, Is this absolutely vital to the process?
I am reluctant do the DSC. As I have already have an open ticket along with my CHASA Dedicated Hunter Status accreditation in South Africa. I am an experienced hunter who regularly shoots both in the UK and abroad. Do I really have to go through a hoop jumping exercise that is going to cost me cash I would rather use hunting?

Thanks in advance!

 

[RED-DOT]

DSC 1&2 MANDATORY... and they will shoot anything that moves prior to re-letting it.... I had 3 forests and it was a total waste of money due to human disturbance and lack of deer. You will need insurances and tickets for quad & Argo... But most of all you will need to really be the guy that already has it long before the tenders are recieved.

 

[Jamba]

...But most of all you will need to really be the guy that already has it long before the tenders are recieved.

not in all areas and not always the 'highest price either' not good practice to paint the big picture with same brush.....

 

[6pointer]

Jamba are you saying the process of selection is transparant and ope to all. I really hope not!!! Before any one gose on FC ground it will be shot day and night untill there is not one set of eyes in the place also after that if they go through the wood 6 months later and see a few sets of eyes they will be back in with Lamp and gun.

 

[Mannlicher_Stu]

Hang on David I thought you had been campaining in the past that all leases should be put out to open tender, have you had a change of heart then?

 

[RED-DOT]

Tayside FC are bordering on being culpable for theft and fraud... they tried to take our let 2 months early to allow them to lamp it empty. Sex and age never comes into it and their open licence should be looked at.

 

[6pointer]

Stuart while i am sure i did make a differnece in that the Fc big bosses had to sit down and rewrite there lease agreements and now all must go on the open market .We are still along way from being transparant. At the moment the top 5 bids get disscused by a pannel and the one they think fits there!!! critearior the best will get it. The problem there is they pick the top five and they pick the winner so in reality there has been no change. But i am sure after the dust settles we can make a change on this and it is beter than the English one which brakes every rule in the book.I do wounder why no one has challanged the way a public body conducts its buisness in such a cloak and dagger way. For instance why should we be leasing ground and working with the FC when we cannot use the same technics eg out of season lamping shooting from the road side etc etc. ITS TIME SOME ONE GOT A GRIP AND MADE THEM THINK AGAIN. OR AT LEAST MAKE THEM WORK FOR THERE MONEY.

 

[Mannlicher_Stu]

Stuart while i am sure i did make a differnece in that the Fc big bosses had to sit down and rewrite there lease agreements and now all must go on the open market .




We are still along way from being transparant. At the moment the top 5 bids get disscused by a pannel and the one they think fits there!!! critearior the best will get it. The problem there is they pick the top five and they pick the winner so in reality there has been no change.



But i am sure after the dust settles we can make a change on this and it is beter than the English one which brakes every rule in the book.I do wounder why no one has challanged the way a public body conducts its buisness in such a cloak and dagger way.



For instance why should we be leasing ground and working with the FC when we cannot use the same technics eg out of season lamping shooting from the road side etc etc. ITS TIME SOME ONE GOT A GRIP AND MADE THEM THINK AGAIN. OR AT LEAST MAKE THEM WORK FOR THERE MONEY.

 

[paul k]

Stuart while i am sure i did make a differnece in that the Fc big bosses had to sit down and rewrite there lease agreements and now all must go on the open market .We are still along way from being transparant. At the moment the top 5 bids get disscused by a pannel and the one they think fits there!!! critearior the best will get it. The problem there is they pick the top five and they pick the winner so in reality there has been no change. But i am sure after the dust settles we can make a change on this and it is beter than the English one which brakes every rule in the book.I do wounder why no one has challanged the way a public body conducts its buisness in such a cloak and dagger way. For instance why should we be leasing ground and working with the FC when we cannot use the same technics eg out of season lamping shooting from the road side etc etc. ITS TIME SOME ONE GOT A GRIP AND MADE THEM THINK AGAIN. OR AT LEAST MAKE THEM WORK FOR THERE MONEY.

My day job is as a public procurement consultant and there are lines of challenge open to you if you feel that you've been unfairly treated. Unfortunately the full weight of the law is not open to you until the value (total life not annual value) is over £105k and under this threshold the law is a little more muted. It does however still require a transparent procurement and the criteria for awarding the contract should be published as part of the documentation and then all bidders must be advised within 15 days of submitting a written request of how their offering scored using that criteria in comparison with the winning tender. If this fails then you can use the Freedom of Information Act to request the same information, this time responses must be within 21 days of receiving your application for information.

If buyers are found to have breached EU procurement law they are liable to be instructed to cancel the contract, run the process again and then possibly pay damages to the person to whom they originally awarded the contract for taking it away. The problem is that to take a case in the UK courts will require expensive legal representation and obviously not worth it on a stalking lease.

The Forestry Commission are "a body governed by Public law" and as such are fully subject to the EU regulations on public procurement.

 

[Mannlicher_Stu]

My day job is as a public procurement consultant and there are lines of challenge open to you if you feel that you've been unfairly treated. Unfortunately the full weight of the law is not open to you until the value (total life not annual value) is over £105k and under this threshold the law is a little more muted. It does however still require a transparent procurement and the criteria for awarding the contract should be published as part of the documentation and then all bidders must be advised within 15 days of submitting a written request of how their offering scored using that criteria in comparison with the winning tender. If this fails then you can use the Freedom of Information Act to request the same information, this time responses must be within 21 days of receiving your application for information.

If buyers are found to have breached EU procurement law they are liable to be instructed to cancel the contract, run the process again and then possibly pay damages to the person to whom they originally awarded the contract for taking it away. The problem is that to take a case in the UK courts will require expensive legal representation and obviously not worth it on a stalking lease.

The Forestry Commission are "a body governed by Public law" and as such are fully subject to the EU regulations on public procurement.

O Yeah and whose going to challenge the F.C costing megga bucks chasing a poxy lease equating to about £2000 to lodge a claim in court your fee for doing so dosent make it even thinking about.

Things have changed anyhow it appears that a different format is now in place where they are tendering out service that they are paying for by a DMG

 

[paul k]

As I said, to lodge a legal challenge in the UK is prohibitive in terms of cost, however it costs nothing to lodge a complaint with the EU Commission and although it won't affect any individual tender you might be involved with it will prompt the EU to have a look at the FC tendering process and it might get sorted out.

 

[Milligan]

As I said, to lodge a legal challenge in the UK is prohibitive in terms of cost, however it costs nothing to lodge a complaint with the EU Commission and although it won't affect any individual tender you might be involved with it will prompt the EU to have a look at the FC tendering process and it might get sorted out.

Or it will make it more complicated and oneruos to tender...

Is the FC really that bad? I ask as I am looking into bidding.

 

[griff]

Milligan,
There are always allegations made against the FC,if any of them were true then we would see unrefuted evidence posted on the www and heads would roll.
The main criteria that the FC look at is:

Will the leasholder get the job done.
Is his paperwork in order.
The bid.

Get those right and your in with a shout..

Just think of all the people that are happy with an FC lease as opposed to those that are not..

regards
Griff

 

[Mannlicher_Stu]

Milligan,
There are always allegations made against the FC,if any of them were true then we would see unrefuted evidence posted on the www and heads would roll.
The main criteria that the FC look at is:

Will the leasholder get the job done.
Is his paperwork in order.
The bid.

Get those right and your in with a shout..

Just think of all the people that are happy with an FC lease as opposed to those that are not..

regards
Griff

No disrespect Griff but how would you prove a case against the F.C in any event?

All the evidence is circumstantial even if you know that they are coming during the hours of darkness shooting it under licience on a lease its built into the terms and conditions of carrying out such work if they and i repeat they feel it is necessary , you havent any re dress but it dosent make it right, such practice can only alienate those lease holders.

I know I would be mighty ****ed off some of the guys on here pay decent money to be part of a syndicate in the genuine belief that when they travel some hundreds of miles they are going to see deer at least.

Whilst I was involved in a lease at Achercain on the Solway the adjoining landowner informed us that they was going into the forest at night and lamping , which altered the total behaviour pattern of the animals in the forest so when we next went we saw bugger all. I wasnt impressed with quite a few other issues as well in respect to other wildlife management issues ,although it was a superb place to stalk, Both myself and stalking partner decided not to be involved again with them, and would revue the situation should it improve.
Regards
Stu

 

[griff]

Stu,
No offence taken!
FC leases are quite clear, in that they as you say can enter the lease to shoot any deer at any given time,BUT,there has to be a reason.
Damage is one,not achieving the cull is another.
On both accounts the FC will inform you and give you a reasonable time to rectify the problem.
If they enter the lease without notification they have themselves breached the terms of the lease.

I'm not sure as to the recourse of a situation like that, but i'm sure that someone on this site that is far more knowledgable than I will tell you.

The question I have to ask is why were the FC lamping your bit of ground,and what reason did they give you as the leaseholder.

regards
Griff




0

 

[RED-DOT]

They usually just say they are seeing immature tree damage and off they go....

 

[centralbeltstalker]

Stu,
No offence taken!
FC leases are quite clear, in that they as you say can enter the lease to shoot any deer at any given time,BUT,there has to be a reason.
Damage is one,not achieving the cull is another.
On both accounts the FC will inform you and give you a reasonable time to rectify the problem.


The question I have to ask is why were the FC lamping your bit of ground,and what reason did they give you as the leaseholder.

regards
Griff

The Fc has always been an open book regarding this as far as i know.
They don't lease it out to stalkers then go all over it with rangers at night.
Griff has made a valid point and i would say before this turns into a slanging match why doesn't someone contact the Fc and ask them for their terms.
i dont have any Fc leases and am making assumptions from my dealings with them through other parties.
must be a Fc representative on here somewhere.

frank

 

[Mannlicher_Stu]

Stu,
No offence taken!
FC leases are quite clear, in that they as you say can enter the lease to shoot any deer at any given time,BUT,there has to be a reason.
Damage is one,not achieving the cull is another.
On both accounts the FC will inform you and give you a reasonable time to rectify the problem.
If they enter the lease without notification they have themselves breached the terms of the lease.

I'm not sure as to the recourse of a situation like that, but i'm sure that someone on this site that is far more knowledgable than I will tell you.

The question I have to ask is why were the FC lamping your bit of ground,and what reason did they give you as the leaseholder.

regards
Griff




0

In all Honesty Griff I am not aware that any notification was given, (I wasnt the main shooting tennant of this particular lease only a named controller so I Presume they dont have to notify me, but from what I can gather no notice as such was issued in fact when challenged on the matter it was firmly denied I understand)

The area in question where lamping took place was on tree standings over 15 year old so no effective damage could have been of concern, there was an area some 2 miles away on Rascarrell Moss that had replanting but from what i can gather from land owners in the vicinity no lamping took place in that area which does seem strange admiteddly.
Obviously caused us great concern and made us somewhat aware, It wasnt poachers unless they was entering the forest in Forestry commision vehicles
Worrying really Neil.
Regards
Stu

 

[centralbeltstalker]

In all Honesty Griff I am not aware that any notification was given, (I wasnt the main shooting tennant of this particular lease only a named controller so I Presume they dont have to notify me, but from what I can gather no notice as such was issued in fact when challenged on the matter it was firmly denied I understand)
Stu

Stu,

i think you may have been misled possibly by your lease holder (sorry if not to said lease holder), i cant see any Fc ranger been allowed to shoot on a lease without someone been told.
do you realise the implications of a confrontation with the leaseholder/police if they accidently bumped into each other at night...

 

[griff]

Red Dot,
I can only speak as I find, my experiences with the FC have always been to the letter of the lease.
Any issues with tree damage have been addressed after discusion with FDM and the Ranger. Pressure was put on a particular area where the damage was occurring and that issue was resolved.Cull returns are always an issue, but again once addressed, problem resolved.
If you leave any of these issues then the results are inevitable.
FC leases are there for you to control the deer and the damage that deer do.

I find it hard to believe that in cases where a Ranger has been sent in to reduce the deer population that there has not been any communication between both parties.
It would be interesting to hear first hand experiences of this happening,while we have had our disagreements in the past, with some quite heated exchanges,but they have been upfront everytime.
If however you find yourself in a situation where there is a clear breach of lease then most of you should have insurance...

regards
Griff