"BAC" wrote in message
...

I don't think I have missed the point. Yes, landowners own land in order
to
use it, and, I guess from your remarks, you mean use it for a financial
gain. Hence, the use to which they wish to put it has to be one they are
confident will be profitable. I don't believe that wholesale upland
conifer
planting would fit that particular bill. For example, the 1998 Bell Ingram
study for the forestry commission suggested that, without grants, Douglas
fir plantations generated the highest internal rate of return, at 2.82 % -
hardly an attractive investment and perhaps the reason standing timber
values have dropped so much over the past few decades.

OTOH, doing relatively inexpensive things which attract grant income
(which
includes some things beloved to conservationists, like removing deer
fences)
and sporting uses, e.g. deer stalking, etc., are more attractive.
Alternatively, if no viable commercial use is found, the landowner might
be
better off cutting his losses and investing elsewhere, with the
consequence
the land will probably be considered worthless and left to its own
devices,
as used to happen to disused quarries, etc.

abandoned land tends to get used, tyre dumps and other such uses come to
mind. Not only that but there are so many people out there with uses for
land now, 4x4 tracks, paint ball, somewhere to leave heavy vehicles, park
carvans when they are not being used. Land further from towns will have less
uses, but what you must remember is that people already own the land. To say
that they will get a better return by cutting their losses presupposes
someone will buy it off them.
For someone to buy it off them, that person has to see a return. So what you
are more likely to see is the land remaining in the ownership of someone who
plants trees, or does 4x4 courses or runs hill sheep, whichever enables them
to make a living

Jim Webster