Respecting Nature

2.5k · May 9, 2006

The guidlines on cache placement states:

No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

Should any caches be allowed to interfere with these areas? Should cachers ignore the fine balance of nature and historical areas?

May 9, 2006

An SSSI near us prohibits caches but allows dog walkers, kids on bikes, etc. Totally ridiculous.

1.5k · May 9, 2006

An SSSI near us prohibits caches but allows dog walkers, kids on bikes, etc. Totally ridiculous.

Quite agree!

May 9, 2006

Guess it's up to the landowner and the relavant authorities what activities can take place on any particular pocket of land.

May 9, 2006

From GAGB guidlines:

No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

From GC.com Guidlines:

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans.

In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc.). There are many local caching organizations that would be able to help you out with those regulations.

If the Geocaching.com web site is contacted and informed that your cache has been placed inappropriately, your cache may be archived or disabled and you may be contacted with any information provided by the individual or organization who contacted us.

What was the question again?

Edit: A tiny voice is saying "You should have waited for the follow up". Something like " then why was this allowed"

Edited May 9, 2006 by naffita

1k · May 9, 2006

I believe Moote is being unecessarily inflamatory in this post in that it would appear to address a concern that is already a dispute between him and the local reviewers and has been referred to Groundspeak.

This being so I feel further discussion here, at the present time, is inappropriate and I would request a moritarium on further posts until the matter has been fully investiagted and a debate may be more appropriate and

Many Thanks,

Eckington

1.5k · May 9, 2006

Deleted following belated reading of Eckington's post.

Edited May 9, 2006 by walkergeoff

2.5k · May 9, 2006

I believe Moote is being unecessarily inflamatory in this post in that it would appear to address a concern that is already a dispute between him and the local reviewers and has been referred to Groundspeak.

This being so I feel further discussion here, at the present time, is inappropriate and I would request a moritarium on further posts until the matter has been fully investiagted and a debate may be more appropriate and

Many Thanks,

Eckington

Sorry Dave

I never mentioned any names you entered this information, don't try and accuse me of being inflammatory

Milton

Edited May 9, 2006 by Moote

1.5k · May 9, 2006

I believe Moote is being unecessarily inflamatory in this post in that it would appear to address a concern that is already a dispute between him and the local reviewers and has been referred to Groundspeak.

This being so I feel further discussion here, at the present time, is inappropriate and I would request a moritarium on further posts until the matter has been fully investiagted and a debate may be more appropriate and

Many Thanks,

Eckington

Sorry - didn't see that until after I posted my second effort. I will delete my comments.

May 9, 2006

QUOTE:''I believe Moote is being unecessarily inflamatory in this post in that it would appear to address a concern that is already a dispute between him and the local reviewers and has been referred to Groundspeak.

This being so I feel further discussion here, at the present time, is inappropriate and I would request a moritarium on further posts until the matter has been fully investiagted and a debate may be more appropriate and

Many Thanks,

Eckington''

Sorry but i see no imflamatory remarks in Mootes post at all.As i see it he was just touching on GC.coms own guidelines.Are we not allowed to query rules,regulations and caching practices now ?

May 9, 2006

As with TDW I fail to see the inflamatory nature of this post or any mention of any disagreements with reviewers or Groundspeak.

Looks like a perfectly valid post to me.

1.4k · May 9, 2006

Should any caches be allowed to interfere with these areas? Should cachers ignore the fine balance of nature and historical areas?

If you have the landowners permission...Yes. We have a cache in a SSSI (with permission) yet I can't imagine how it would damage the site as he maintenance regeme includes hacking areas of encroaching woodland back, grazing by Cows and machine cutting the very rare orchids the SSSI is there to protect.

SSSIs do not mean the site is wrapped in cotton wool, Conservation does not mean preservation and some of these areas require action that looks like devistation but helps preserve the environment. Compared to the amount of "damage" done to preserve stuff a bit of disturbance near the cache seems like nothing.

Chris

2.5k · May 9, 2006

Should any caches be allowed to interfere with these areas? Should cachers ignore the fine balance of nature and historical areas?

If you have the landowners permission...Yes. We have a cache in a SSSI (with permission) yet I can't imagine how it would damage the site as he maintenance regeme includes hacking areas of encroaching woodland back, grazing by Cows and machine cutting the very rare orchids the SSSI is there to protect.

SSSIs do not mean the site is wrapped in cotton wool, Conservation does not mean preservation and some of these areas require action that looks like devistation but helps preserve the environment. Compared to the amount of "damage" done to preserve stuff a bit of disturbance near the cache seems like nothing.

Chris

But sometimes entry into areas can increase the likely hood of serious disruption to features that are 100's thousands years old. This is why the Earthcache category was created. (although sadly moved to Waymarking.com)

Here is my dilemma:

A cache is placed deep within a cave, this cave is of significant geological SSSI and is included within the SSSI schedule, an untrained cacher would not know how to react in treating features such as cave muds, Stalactites or Stalagmites, also this geological feature supports various cave life which requires protection.

We jump up and down if a cache is in a dry stone wall (quite rightly), but the introduction of cachers to a cave could damage things that can't be rebuilt or repaired. Do we really want to be party to the possible destruction of such environments?

These require protection from this kind of activity. We need to be responsible, or caching will get a name in the public that is synonymous with uncaring.

I have witness cave's that have been trashed, through open access lets not encourage cachers to be placed in the vandal camp.

May 9, 2006

[Do we really want to be party to the possible destruction of such environments?

The fear of environmental damage caused by geocaching is a concern which is almost as old as geocaching itself, and quite a controversial one. Interesting can of worms you have opened there!

May 9, 2006

I think the question should be of the particular cache rather than the general. I have a cache in an SSSI and a mountain of paperwork to prove it is approved and the cache is positioned such that no damage will occur to the environment. I know of another in North Wales, again on an SSSI and with permission that is not causing any local harm.

It is important anywhere and particularly on a SSSI to be aware of the effect of the cache on the environment, but provided approval is obtained from the relevant authorities I don't see why there should be a blanket ban.

2.5k · May 9, 2006

I think the question should be of the particular cache rather than the general. I have a cache in an SSSI and a mountain of paperwork to prove it is approved and the cache is positioned such that no damage will occur to the environment. I know of another in North Wales, again on an SSSI and with permission that is not causing any local harm.

It is important anywhere and particularly on a SSSI to be aware of the effect of the cache on the environment, but provided approval is obtained from the relevant authorities I don't see why there should be a blanket ban.

But if we place in a sensitive SSSI, then this could seriously hinder more sustainable SSSI being used in future. So some form of control is required

May 9, 2006

SSSIs do not mean the site is wrapped in cotton wool, Conservation does not mean preservation and some of these areas require action that looks like devistation but helps preserve the environment. Compared to the amount of "damage" done to preserve stuff a bit of disturbance near the cache seems like nothing.

Any informed discussion of the aims of conservation needs to start with Australia's 1979 Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter), Australia ICOMOS, Sydney. The Burra Charter is the first document to try and make sense of the aims and wooly terminology of the conservation world where the natural, built and cultural environments all meet.

As a general principle the more you interfere with an environment (natural, built or cultural) the greater the loss of value; hence the concept of true "Wilderness" where access by humans is severely controlled (eg refuge areas in true National Parks - before some one goes off on one let me state that under UNESCO classifications British "National Parks" are classified as Protected Landscapes not National Parks).

Conservation - means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its Natural, Indigenous and Cultural significance. It includes protection, maintenance and monitoring. According to circumstance it may involve preservation, restoration, reconstruction, reinstatement or adaptation and will be commonly a combination of more than one of these. For Indigenous communities, it can include conserving relationships between people and place that embrace spiritual as well as historical values, and protecting Aboriginal Sites in order to protect their significance to people. (Burra Charter, 1979)

It is generally considered that there are seven levels of conservation, of which wrapping in cotton wool is only one. These are:

1. Maintenance (indirect conservation) means upkeep of fabric and places , and does not involve restoration, reconstruction or reinstatement.

2. Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration.

3. Consolidation (direct conservation) means adding or applying supportive materials into the actual fabric in order to ensure its continued durability and structural integrity.

4. Restoration means returning the existing fabric, habitat or place to a known earlier state or to an approximation of the natural condition by repairing degradation, removing accretions or introduced species or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material.

5. Adaptation means modifying a place to suit proposed compatible uses. Compatible use means a use that involves no change to the significant fabric or attributes, changes, which are substantially reversible, or changes which require minimal impact.

6. Reinstatement or reintroduction means to introduce to a place one or more species or elements of habitat or geodiversity that are known to have existed there naturally at a previous time, but that can no

longer be found at that place.

7. Reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric.

Here endith the lesson. So pack up your books and lets get outside for some caching!

6.2k · May 10, 2006

I am respecting Eckington's wishes. Woops. Well, you know what I mean

3.8k · May 10, 2006

Being a very novice caver I can see mootes point, there are certain things in caves that you are not supposed to touch as they take many years to form, and the acid alone from your hands can damage it. So I am very much in agreeance with moote now that he has explained his post.

I was however unsure how Ecky could think that the first post was inflammatory?

Myself and a couple of other cachers have had many problems on this forum from a certain person. When complaining about the hidden remarks and agenda to the moderators, most of the time the replies have came back to the effect that they couldn't see anything wrong with the post, and as it is aimed at something which may have arised in private email there was nothing they could do at that particular time.

I feel that in this instance there is no difference and that it is Ecky who has highlighted the fact that it is a problem that is stemming from a private discussion. To my knowledge the moderators have NEVER demonstrated double standards before, and I sincerely hope that this was a genuine mistake from Ecky?

May 10, 2006

"A cache is placed deep within a cave"

That seems even more ludicrous than the things I mentioned earlier! Why on earth should anyone with an ounce of sense want to put a cache down a cave?

1.1k · May 10, 2006

I think that the key part of the guideline is (I've underlined it)

No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

So, if the landowner and relevant authorities are happy that the cache does not risk damage or disturbance, and they've given their permission, then the cache should be be allowed. If they haven't, it shouldn't. If they give permission and then later realise there is a risk, they can withdraw permission, and the cache should be removed.

1.7k · May 10, 2006

To try and clarify Eky's comment. I have been in extensive private communication regarding this matter. As no agreement had been reached I asked that any concerns be addressed directly with Groundspeak/Geocaching.com. The thread was started after that.

While the question asked is quite innocuous on its own, it should be seen in the context of the discussion which preceded it. It may be that the thread is totally unconnected with our prior discussion, in which case I apologise on behalf of my colleague for implying otherwise.

That being said, I will not be drawn into disclosing the details of our private correspondence here.

May 10, 2006

So, if the landowner and relevant authorities are happy that the cache does not risk damage or disturbance, and they've given their permission, then the cache should be be allowed. If they haven't, it shouldn't. If they give permission and then later realise there is a risk, they can withdraw permission, and the cache should be removed.

Exactly. Each SSSI has its own set of considerations, and only those charged with its care can have all of the information needed to assess whether any particular activity will threaten the location.

If, after taking everything into account, they give the go ahead, then surely other people without the access to all of the necessary information are not really in a position to question their decision.

Of course, if someone does have information that can add to the information held by those charged with the responsibility, then they should pass it on. If tis causes a change to the original assessment, then the original go-ahead can be reversed.

I, personally, do not feel that I am qualified to pass judgment on any SSSI subjects, and therefore would not question any caches placed in them on the basis that I know our local cache assessors are very sensitive to these issues and would not have given approval if the real experts had not already stated their agreement.

Bob Aldridge

3.8k · May 10, 2006

"A cache is placed deep within a cave"

That seems even more ludicrous than the things I mentioned earlier! Why on earth should anyone with an ounce of sense want to put a cache down a cave?

Not ludicrous at all!!

That being said, I will not be drawn into disclosing the details of our private correspondence here.

I would hope that no one would expect you too either?

2.5k · May 10, 2006

That being said, I will not be drawn into disclosing the details of our private correspondence here.

I would hope that no one would expect you too either?

I certainly have no intension of disclosing any of this information, I made this thread as general as possible, and up to the point of Eckington posting, it had no meaning to anyone except the local reviewers and me.

The idea of the post was to see how people feel about issue that can affect SAM and SSSI sites. As I have stated we jump up and moan about a dry stone wall, but we should all respect Ancient Monuments and even older Geological, Botanical and Zoological features in the same way.

Moote

1.7k · May 10, 2006

I have a cache in a SSSI and during discussions with both the Landmanager and a member of CCW (the regulatory body in Wales) I was informed that all activity's in SSSI's even those by the landowner are regulated. And that the placement of a cache in a SSSI or other protected site, would not only need permission of the Landowner/manager but also the approval of the regulatory body for the area (CCW/CADW in Wales, English Nature/Heritage in England) so as not to fall foul of the law.

Dave

3.8k · May 10, 2006

ALL cache sites should be treated the same and NOT damaged in any way.

I dont get to a cache and think this is not a SSSI so I can search how I want!

Edited May 10, 2006 by Deego

2.5k · May 10, 2006

ALL cache sites should be treated the same and NOT damaged in any way.

I dont get to a cache and think this is not a SSSI so I can search how I want!

Entirly true, but sometimes increasing traffic in an area can potentially increase the chances of damage. Caves can't be rebuilt and take 100's thoushands of years to develope. The leaving of a handprint on a stal can ruin a formation. But this is not just about a cave, the Orchid requires protecting, animals etc, there are good reasons why we all need to tread carefully when placing caches but SSSI need greater consideration as do SAM sites, after all they are deemed to be important places

May 10, 2006

Well I was going to say earlier that Moote's original post seemed like he was seeking ammunition in some debate and it turns out it's true. Hmm....

3.8k · May 10, 2006

Well I was going to say earlier that Moote's original post seemed like he was seeking ammunition in some debate and it turns out it's true. Hmm....

That may well be true and certainly does look that way? But sadly we will never know, as this thread only went down this particular route after Eckingtons post, which was only after one post by moote. <_<

Edited May 10, 2006 by Haggis Hunter

2.2k · May 10, 2006

Opinion: Moote was spoiling for a fight

Fact the reviewers are human and may occasionally react.

Opinion: this thread does no one in the community any good

3.8k · May 10, 2006

Opinion: Moote was spoiling for a fight

Fact the reviewers are human and may occasionally react.

Opinion: this thread does no one in the community any good

Going on mootes past history he was probably spoiling for a fight and the thread has devoloped the way he may have hoped it would?

Yes, the reviewers are just like us and may make mistakes and react. I know I have several times. But they of all people should think before they click the reply button. Going by my past experiences Eckington has on this instance displayed a double standard. An honest mistake I am more than sure, but perhaps he should have held off until the thread developed a bit more.

As for this thread not doing the community any good, can you honestly say that most threads on this forum do the community any good? A day does not go by without several hot topic debates, that do very often get personal, being ran on this forum. <_< :mad:

May 10, 2006

Personally I think Eckington was just letting us all know that there was an undercurrent to the original post. There is nothing wrong with that, as it is unfair for people to be manipulated into a stance on an issue that they do not have all the facts for.

There again it was started by Moote, when are people going to learn <_< :mad:

2.5k · May 10, 2006

Well I was going to say earlier that Moote's original post seemed like he was seeking ammunition in some debate and it turns out it's true. Hmm....

I think you will find it started as a question, it was the reviewer Eckington who took this in to the personal ground

May 10, 2006

Entirly true, but sometimes increasing traffic in an area can potentially increase the chances of damage.

This is true and is one of the questions the The Countryside Commission for Wales raised with me. When I gave them the precise grid reference they felt that this was unlikely to happen; however, I am under an obligation to monitor the area for erosion caused by the cache placement, which I do. If I had been planning a cache in a cave I am sure they would have been mindful of damage to any stalagtites etc. I am sure there must be some caves that are SSSI where a cache could be placed well away from the sensitive stalagtites, flora and fauna etc to ensure no damage is caused. Judge every case individually I say, which is what the responsible legislative bodies already do.

2.5k · May 10, 2006

Opinion: Moote was spoiling for a fight

Fact the reviewers are human and may occasionally react.

Opinion: this thread does no one in the community any good

This is so far from the truth, I am attempting to work withing the Geocaching Guidelines

No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

If you read the above it says "No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance", the cache in question most certainly does. The Reviewers and Cache setter might not feel that a hole in a rock can be at risk but It can, and does in this case.

3.8k · May 10, 2006

If you read the above it says "No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance", the cache in question most certainly does. The Reviewers and Cache setter might not feel that a hole in a rock can be at risk but It can, and does in this case.

Now you are starting to take this thread to the actual cache that is in question.

As for the guidelines they are GAGB guidelines and if the cache has permission from the relative bodies, for that particular site, then it has nothing to do with you are GAGB on the placement.

The thread is now starting to go down the route that I believe Eckington was worried about, and this would have been the time for him to react.

2.5k · May 10, 2006

Is anybody else familiar with the story about the boy who cried wolf?

2.5k · May 10, 2006

If you read the above it says "No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance", the cache in question most certainly does. The Reviewers and Cache setter might not feel that a hole in a rock can be at risk but It can, and does in this case.

Now you are starting to take this thread to the actual cache that is in question.

As for the guidelines they are GAGB guidelines and if the cache has permission from the relative bodies, for that particular site, then it has nothing to do with you are GAGB on the placement.

The thread is now starting to go down the route that I believe Eckington was worried about, and this would have been the time for him to react.

I'm sorry the Guidelines might be the GAGB's but they are what is generally agreed to be the accepted standard. You might notice the GC.com guidelines do not mention dry stone walls, but that is the accepted norm in the UK not to place in a dry stone wall.

As far as I can see no permission has been granted, the cache owner thinks the Derbyshire Cave Rescue Organisation will provide this; but they have no jurisdiction over the site. The bodies responsible for cave conservation are The Derbyshire Caving Association, and the British Cave Association. I would think that these bodies require consultation along with English Nature (who monitor SSSI in general) and the landowner.

If we continue to just place where we want, then a day will come when landowners will just remove caches; now that would not do anyone any good

May 10, 2006

Well I was going to say earlier that Moote's original post seemed like he was seeking ammunition in some debate and it turns out it's true. Hmm....

See my earlier post, the edit was added before Eckington's post. I'm with you on this one, and the thread's going as I suspected. With the added little drips of information accidentaly dropped into the thread I think I know which cache we're on about.

3.3k · May 10, 2006

"A cache is placed deep within a cave"

That seems even more ludicrous than the things I mentioned earlier! Why on earth should anyone with an ounce of sense want to put a cache down a cave?

Some of the best caches I have ever done have been down caves. Just because you think it is a ludicrous idea doesn't mean it is a ludicrous idea <_<

1.7k · May 10, 2006

Now you can all see why Eckington posted so early on in an attempt to douse the flames before a conflagration started.

This thread is getting personal and I will not tolerate that. I am closing it down now.

For those of you interested in Reviewer Bashing I will start a new thread for you. I trust you will enjoy yourselves.

Respecting Nature

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment