Bad News

[Lactodorum]

Despite some sterling efforts by The Wombles and GAGB who have been trying to negotiate a deal for the past month or two with the NW area Forestry Commission, unfortunately negotiations have concluded without agreement being reached. I have to announce that no caches are to be allowed in land controlled by them. Their area covers the counties of Cumbria, Cheshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester & Merseyside. The main stumbling block was their insistence on charging £50 for a 3 year permit for placing caches. That is £50 per person. We felt we could not support such a charge.

 

As a result no Geocaches can be placed on their land. Given the cooperative nature of other areas this is a huge disappointment but it would have set a very damaging precedent.

 

The knock on effect of this is that any caches already on their land are now there against their express permission and must be removed. Deceangi (who has already archived his cache there) and I will wait a couple of weeks for owners to archive their own caches before starting to archive them ourselves.

 

Although Deceangi and I were aware of the negotiations and had input to them, all the hard work was done by others and we are very grateful for their efforts.

[+The Golem]

Perhaps we could have one designated cacher as the owner of all caches placed on FC land, all local cachers would be responsible for their own cache but the name that appeared on the cache page would be for the same person. I'm sure we could police this ourselves...

[+Haggis Hunter]

A lot of owners of caches within this area won't know about this outcome, is there some way of letting the owners know, as they don't all frequent the forums.

 

It is very sad news. Obviously they see it as an opportunity to make money. There loss as well as ours.

 

[+Pengy&Tigger]

Sorry to hear this news.

 

So is there a map or list of areas, woodlands to avoid? Would be of help if people don`t know and spend time and research into placing a cache, only to find that it is in a no-go area.

 

Pengy

[Red Squadron]

I just want to say that whoever it is in that particular Forestry Commission that made this ruling doesnt really understand what this Geocaching is all about. If they did then they would know that it is a family pursuit and involves the usage of their walks, the enjoyment of their parks, etc. If they dont want the public to enjoy their forests etc then why dont they put barbed wire around their designated areas. Possibly even dog patrols to keep out unwanted commoners like myself. I suppose in extreme cases where the public insist on going (like mountains, Ben Nevis, etc) they could even have machine gun posts. RANT OVER.......but i havent finished.........Small rant to follow

 

Take this scenario just as an example.

 

POSITIVES..............

Human with tupperware box, puts the box into a hollow tree, under a bush etc. This action would then initiate other humans to pursue a healthy hobby, to gain Family Values by involving their children or friends, and also it would in some circumstances generate revenue for the FC (This i am not sure about so dont quote me )

 

NEGATIVES..................

1. Fox, digs away at the ground to make a lair. Purely an act for themselves and no others. (We dont bury items)

2. Badger does the same.

3. Woodpecker drills a hole into a tree. (We dont harm trees)

4. FC drives all over the land. (We leave our vehicles in designated parking spots)

5. I am sure there are lots more, maybe you can think of some.

 

So, as you can see there are more negatives that they allow than positives that they dont allow. Dont get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with nature, we could not live without it, but what i am saying is that the FC has not looked at both sides before making a judgement.

 

Lets not forget that the FC cultivate trees for the market place. We are the buyers of their product whether it be wood for telegraph poles (being phased out) or wood for the paper making industry, the furniture industry. So it is in their interest to work alongside us, the public, to ensure their ongoing business.

It seems to me that they are alienating themselves away from the public in this instance. Okay folks this is my opinion (rant) on this matter. Bearing in mind that I live in Norfolk and nowhere near the NW. Then please excuse me for butting in on this subject. But you know what they say, If one does it, others may follow.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Red Squadron

[Deceangi]

Here's a general list of NW Foresty Areas Land

 

I to would like to thank GAGB and particular the Wombles for the hard work that they put in.

 

Lactodorum and I will work our way through each area contacting cache owners and informing them of the situation.

 

If anyone is unsure about a cache location for a cache they have already got in place, a quick check is to use the Streetmap link on the cache page. FC Land boundary's are clearly marked on the maps.

 

Deceangi

Edited June 27, 2006 by Deceangi

[alistair_uk]

Will some form of communication continue? Although this may not help in the short term people and opinions change and I would rather it was documented and as a work in progress rather than a brick wall.

[lakeuk]

If anyone is unsure about a cache location for a cache they have already got in place, a quick check is to use the Streetmap link on the cache page. FC Land boundary's are clearly marked on the maps.

 

I did a cache yesterday which was in a nice area, looking at the map it just outside FC land - it's was literally 2 metres from the FC welcome signs - would of been a shame to have seen it disappear

[+The Forester]

charging £50 for a 3 year permit

 

Harrumph!

 

cache placement for free = bad

cache placement for £50 = good

 

That simultaneous equation stinks. It's the worst of Thatcherism/Blairism and is indicative of the type of people who know the price of everything and understand the value of nothing.

 

Bah, Humbug!

 

Although it means shunning many excellent caching locations, I think CAGB/GC.com were wise to walk away from such a pay_to_cache deal.

 

Time to have a wee word with one's MP, methinks.

[+scaw]

Typical of this area.............

The cache lakeuk is on about is mine but reading the Forestry commission site rules it states that if an event is planned that involves crossing there land you must pay well my cache doesn't involve crossing there land at all

[+scaw]

duplicate post sorry

Edited June 27, 2006 by scaw

[+G Force]

Sorry to hear the news and looks like any future caching trips will not be in that area.

 

Quote from their website"Geocaching is an increasingly popular sport and one which the Forestry Commission in North West England,in partnership with the Geocaching Association of Great Britain (GAGB ), is keen to support. "

 

Seems they are only keen to collect the money.

[+Pieman]

Having dealt with the people in the NW Forestry Commission I know there are some people very supportive to geocaching and some others who are less so and take the path of least resistance by saying "no". However, it seems to me that they have not banned caches on their land, rather it is the Approvers who have done so as the FC website still advertises that you can get a permit for £50- although if you ask them about this (from experience) they don't know which permit to give you!

 

I think their actions in making a charge are wrong, but at what point does paying an admin charge to a landowner mean that we ban cache placement on their land? If you put one cache on their land that is a lot of admin, but if you put 10, then £5 a time probably doesn't cover it.

 

Let's face it, there aren't many people going to pay £50 to place a cache or two on FC land, so do we need to ban it or do we allow people to decide for themselves?

[+KiwiGary]

Hmm, that is a bummer.

 

I was planning on going up to finish the cache in Grizedale forest, the way of markers. Great cache shame to see it archived.

 

Lets hope other groups don't follow suit with these charges.

 

See ya...Gary

[+The HERB5]

brick wall.

 

Shouldn't that read...

 

Forget it, I didn't say anything....

[alistair_uk]

Having dealt with the people in the NW Forestry Commission I know there are some people very supportive to geocaching and some others who are less so and take the path of least resistance by saying "no". However, it seems to me that they have not banned caches on their land, rather it is the Approvers who have done so as the FC website still advertises that you can get a permit for £50- although if you ask them about this (from experience) they don't know which permit to give you!

 

I think their actions in making a charge are wrong, but at what point does paying an admin charge to a landowner mean that we ban cache placement on their land? If you put one cache on their land that is a lot of admin, but if you put 10, then £5 a time probably doesn't cover it.

 

Let's face it, there aren't many people going to pay £50 to place a cache or two on FC land, so do we need to ban it or do we allow people to decide for themselves?

So, to clarify, are you saying that they have agreed provided we pay £50 per person (is it that per cache)? I got the impression that this was offered but as the GAGB did not sign up to it (correctly IMHO) it was not actually agreed.

[+The Bolas Heathens]

There is a draft agreement on their site at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-6QRFNR which appears to imply they will agree providing you follow the procedure they outline and pay the "fee".

 

So, to clarify, are you saying that they have agreed provided we pay £50 per person (is it that per cache)? I got the impression that this was offered but as the GAGB did not sign up to it (correctly IMHO) it was not actually agreed.

[+Chris n Maria]

I was planning on going up to finish the cache in Grizedale forest, the way of markers. Great cache shame to see it archived.

 

Isn't that a virtual using the existing waymarks. I see no reason to archive it.

 

Chris

[+Kryten]

This stinks, do they charge a similar fee for birdwatchers, mountain bikers, orienteerers, ramblers etc or is the discrimination limited to cachers. Find an opposition MP whose contituency includes one of the areas and get them to make enquiries. There nothing like house of commons stationery landing on the desk of a civil servant to cause sphincter tightening all round.

[piedwagtail91]

i've e mailed ( a nice polite one) the forestry commission, telling them my views on this. i think they're being very shortsighted.

it won't make any difference but bombarding them with e mails may make them reconsider if they know how much support geocaching has.

[NickPick]

There is a draft agreement on their site at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-6QRFNR which appears to imply they will agree providing you follow the procedure they outline and pay the "fee".

 

 

I notice that page reads "It's free to find caches, but £50 for a licence to place them", so there won't be many to find will there!

 

I also notice an email address. Time for a nice polite email expressing my disappointment.

[+The Bolas Heathens]

Exactly

I notice that page reads "It's free to find caches, but £50 for a licence to place them", so there won't be many to find will there!

[Lactodorum]

I was not involved in the actual negotiation so I do not know the detail. As I understand it, the agreement would have been similar to other areas in that the previously agreed local guidelines would need to be followed. The main difference here is that each cacher would have to pay £50 for a 3 year permit, the sort of thing that has always been issued without charge elsewhere.

 

By all means make whatever contacts you feel appropriate but I would urge you to keep any comments polite and constructive. I have always found the Forestry Commission helpful and professional in the past and I hope that eventually an agreement might be forthcoming.

[+Kitty Hawk]

I was adding a reply before work interrupted earlier.

 

It was along the lines of "can we avoid rage/criticism/ranting etc." The forestry commission must have it's reasons for doing this, whether we agree with them or not.

 

The response that we give here could induce all the other forestry commission areas follow suit. Or, we could hope to change the mind of the North West area.

 

As far as I can see, burning our bridges won't help us either locally or nationally.

 

Adrian

[+Pieman]

I was adding a reply before work interrupted earlier.

 

It was along the lines of "can we avoid rage/criticism/ranting etc." The forestry commission must have it's reasons for doing this, whether we agree with them or not.

 

The response that we give here could induce all the other forestry commission areas follow suit. Or, we could hope to change the mind of the North West area.

 

As far as I can see, burning our bridges won't help us either locally or nationally.

 

Adrian

Agree with this. I also note that they actually have a link to a draft permit on their site now.

[SlytherinAlex]

Perhaps we could have one designated cacher as the owner of all caches placed on FC land, all local cachers would be responsible for their own cache but the name that appeared on the cache page would be for the same person. I'm sure we could police this ourselves...

Crafty !! I like it.

[+Cave Troll and Eeyore]

Well what a bummer, is someone doing a list of all the caches involved.

 

Eeyore

[piedwagtail91]

IBy all means make whatever contacts you feel appropriate but I would urge you to keep any comments polite and constructive. I have always found the Forestry Commission helpful and professional in the past and I hope that eventually an agreement might be forthcoming.

 

i would strongly agree with this.

getting their backs up will do no good at all.

i pointed out that cachers would more often than not clear other peoples litter during their search for a cache, thus keeping the woodlands clean, and save the fc money by not having to do it themselves.

[+The Wombles]

I was not involved in the actual negotiation so I do not know the detail. As I understand it, the agreement would have been similar to other areas in that the previously agreed local guidelines would need to be followed. The main difference here is that each cacher would have to pay £50 for a 3 year permit, the sort of thing that has always been issued without charge elsewhere.

 

By all means make whatever contacts you feel appropriate but I would urge you to keep any comments polite and constructive. I have always found the Forestry Commission helpful and professional in the past and I hope that eventually an agreement might be forthcoming.

 

I have been doing the negotiation here as I do for many GAGB agreements. The draft agreement was modelled on the New Forest agreement and Peter is correct in the above understanding.

 

The FC webpage is based on my negotiations which have been running since March during which the FC were very constructive. When the issue of charges were raised recently then a joint discussion between GAGB and the UK reviewers resulted in the decision that we couldn't agree to the precedent of charging for cache permissions.

 

The relationships have been left in a positive fashion and as such I hope that there will be an opportunity to revisit this at a later date - I do this regularly for several negotiations which "tick over" - this is a very slow process. With this in mind, I'd request that nobody reacts in an emotional way to this. I've had other agreements which hit rocks but still resulted in agreement at a later date.

[+Pieman]

The FC webpage is based on my negotiations which have been running since March during which the FC were very constructive. When the issue of charges were raised recently then a joint discussion between GAGB and the UK reviewers resulted in the decision that we couldn't agree to the precedent of charging for cache permissions.

So, I take it that the FC's decision to go ahead with allowing caches that follow their procedure still stands and caches on their land would be approved by GC.com provided that the cacher follows the FC approval process, it's just that there will as yet be no formal agreement with the GAGB?

[+The Wombles]

So, I take it that the FC's decision to go ahead with allowing caches that follow their procedure still stands and caches on their land would be approved by GC.com provided that the cacher follows the FC approval process, it's just that there will as yet be no formal agreement with the GAGB?

 

This is a question for the UK reviewers but my understanding is that this would involve the payment of £50 for the permission which is a precedent that should not be set.

[alistair_uk]

I have been doing the negotiation here as I do for many GAGB agreements. The draft agreement was modelled on the New Forest agreement and Peter is correct in the above understanding.

 

The FC webpage is based on my negotiations which have been running since March during which the FC were very constructive. When the issue of charges were raised recently then a joint discussion between GAGB and the UK reviewers resulted in the decision that we couldn't agree to the precedent of charging for cache permissions.

 

The relationships have been left in a positive fashion and as such I hope that there will be an opportunity to revisit this at a later date - I do this regularly for several negotiations which "tick over" - this is a very slow process. With this in mind, I'd request that nobody reacts in an emotional way to this. I've had other agreements which hit rocks but still resulted in agreement at a later date.

That actually makes me feel a bit better. At least now I feel we might move forward in the future and this does not set a negative president for Geocaching in the UK.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Shame.

A couple of caches in an area make it "A place worth a visit",

rather than a place "We may visit, possibly."

 

A lot of bodies have to show they have a "Value for money" situation...

However:

 

1 cache £50 over 3 years (less than £17 a year)

or

6 geocache visits in a year, who spend £5 -or more- in the visitor centre.

 

Which makes the FC more money?

 

G

[+The Golem]

Without giving too much away at this stage, I visited the rangers at our local forest park today and enquired about this latest turn of events. The guy seemed interested and quite accomodating and said he would look into it further, I'll be away for a few days but I said I'll go and see him again next week when he'll hopefully have a bit more information. There is a nearby cache which has been active for over four years, I showed him the cache page, a couple of log entries and the gallery photos of smiling kids holding the cache up to the camera.

It might be worth calling into your local rangers office and introducing yourself...

Edited June 27, 2006 by The Golem

[+Phil and Ruth]

The main stumbling block was their insistence on charging £50 for a 3 year permit for placing caches. That is £50 per person. We felt we could not support such a charge.

 

I'm glad you walked away from such an agreement. If this "Licence to Cache" had been accepted then it would have set a precedent and other major land-owners could have decided that this was a good money-making scheme and start making people pay to use their land - £60 for the National Trust, £20 for the local council, £30 for the local wildlife trust and so on - that would get expensive and would have killed this sport/activity/pass-time/hobby...

[The Royles]

So, I take it that the FC's decision to go ahead with allowing caches that follow their procedure still stands and caches on their land would be approved by GC.com provided that the cacher follows the FC approval process, it's just that there will as yet be no formal agreement with the GAGB?

 

This is a question for the UK reviewers but my understanding is that this would involve the payment of £50 for the permission which is a precedent that should not be set.

Surely if an individual was happy to spend £50, then the cache should be listed, as permission would be given.

 

I do not agree with the charge, but if people are willing to pay it, then it is up to them. I thought GC was just a listing service, so it has no input in HOW permission is granted.

 

What would happen if I said I only got agreement for a cache after I took the landowner out for a few pints (my treat), would that not be listed?

[+wizard1974uk]

Can I question something here, the £50 fee that was discussed, would this have meant that the finders of caches would have to pay this fee, or would it have just applied to the cache hiders?

[+MBFace]

It’s all our fault!!!

 

As part of the caching team which started this off I came home from work today to an email from Dave breaking the news about the outcome of the negotiations. We wanted our first cache to be kosher as far as permission was concerned and first approached the local Forestry Commission beat forester before Christmas with a general enquiry about placing caches in his area. We contacted him again in March with details of the proposed location but soon got out of our depth when the issue of permits was raised. We called on Dave’s expertise and were warned that it could be a long process with a negative outcome but nevertheless we were gutted by today’s news and not just on our own account.

 

We’d like to publicly thank Dave for all his efforts in trying to get this through. We fully respect the reviewers’ decision in not going along with the permit fee but can’t help but think that the FC are cutting off their noses to spite their faces – we know of at least two caches, one referred to already in this thread, where any income lost from visiting cachers through car parking charges and cafés could comfortably exceed the proposed fee.

 

MBF

[+Nellies Knackers]

So, I take it that the FC's decision to go ahead with allowing caches that follow their procedure still stands and caches on their land would be approved by GC.com provided that the cacher follows the FC approval process, it's just that there will as yet be no formal agreement with the GAGB?

 

This is a question for the UK reviewers but my understanding is that this would involve the payment of £50 for the permission which is a precedent that should not be set.

Surely if an individual was happy to spend £50, then the cache should be listed, as permission would be given.

 

I do not agree with the charge, but if people are willing to pay it, then it is up to them. I thought GC was just a listing service, so it has no input in HOW permission is granted.

 

What would happen if I said I only got agreement for a cache after I took the landowner out for a few pints (my treat), would that not be listed?

 

I would certainly say if someone wants to pay the fee then it is up to them, but as it was gagb negotiating for permission on behalf of all uk cachers then they were very right not to accept an agreement that involved a fee.

I don't recall anywhere in this thread saying fee paying placers would not get approved, I would assume anyone with a permit would have no trouble whatsoever getting approval.

[Lactodorum]

So, I take it that the FC's decision to go ahead with allowing caches that follow their procedure still stands and caches on their land would be approved by GC.com provided that the cacher follows the FC approval process, it's just that there will as yet be no formal agreement with the GAGB?

 

This is a question for the UK reviewers but my understanding is that this would involve the payment of £50 for the permission which is a precedent that should not be set.

Surely if an individual was happy to spend £50, then the cache should be listed, as permission would be given.

 

I do not agree with the charge, but if people are willing to pay it, then it is up to them. I thought GC was just a listing service, so it has no input in HOW permission is granted.

 

What would happen if I said I only got agreement for a cache after I took the landowner out for a few pints (my treat), would that not be listed?

I shall certainly not be pushing people to spend £50 to "buy" a cache location and I agree that this could set a very unwelcome precedent. However you are right in your assertion that GC.com is a listing service and there is nothing in their guidelines prohibiting this practice. If push comes to shove I expect we would have no option but to list such a cache.

[The Royles]

I shall certainly not be pushing people to spend £50 to "buy" a cache location and I agree that this could set a very unwelcome precedent. However you are right in your assertion that GC.com is a listing service and there is nothing in their guidelines prohibiting this practice. If push comes to shove I expect we would have no option but to list such a cache.

 

My point was of a purely technical nature.

 

I sincerely hope that no-one pays up, as if they get even one taker they will not reconsider the charge.

[+Sensei TSKC]

This stinks, do they charge a similar fee for birdwatchers, mountain bikers, orienteerers, ramblers etc or is the discrimination limited to cachers.

 

Shhhhh. Don't give them ideas!!!

 

[nobby.nobbs]

while i agree with the idea to back off and let negotiations take a breather i would wuestion the legality of their stance and i wonder if a sympathetic mp might be found.

 

they are obliged to encourage use of the land by order from the government.

 

a chat to the local friendly rangers.... just don't undermine the wombles. and no one pay the charge or it will set a precedent that might spread countrywide... once that door has been opened it'll never be shut again.

 

keep up the good work.

[+The Forester]

I shall certainly not be pushing people to spend £50 to "buy" a cache location and I agree that this could set a very unwelcome precedent. However you are right in your assertion that GC.com is a listing service and there is nothing in their guidelines prohibiting this practice. If push comes to shove I expect we would have no option but to list such a cache.

 

The rules preclude the placing of caches where a fee is chargeable for access.

 

What's the difference between charging a fee for placement of a cache and charging a fee for accessing a cache?

 

None.

 

Under it's own rules, GC.com should not list caches for which a fee has been charged.

[dodgydaved]

 

The rules preclude the placing of caches where a fee is chargeable for access.

 

What's the difference between charging a fee for placement of a cache and charging a fee for accessing a cache?

 

None.

 

Under it's own rules, GC.com should not list caches for which a fee has been charged.

 

Interpretation maybe?

 

It would appear that the proposed fee is not being charged for access to the land, but for permission to place the cache.

 

We may not see any difference, but there is a difference

[+Happy Humphrey]

If I was likely to want to place a cache in such an area, I certainly would not agree to the conditions attached to the permit (even if it was free). I'm not going to agree to make myself liable for compensation should they blame my cache for damage caused by visitors, for instance, but this is just what you have to agree to. The banning of ammo boxes seems a bit arbitrary too, particularly when you see them used as cache boxes by the FC themselves (I'm not sure what they keep in them).

 

Do the FC procedures also apply to other geocaching listing sites, or is it a restriction only for geocaching.com?

The temptation (for some) might be to place the cache (without a permit or permission), but then advertise it via a cache listings site that did not use the review process - and at the same time use "advanced" hiding techniques to ensure that the FC is unaware of the cache presence.

 

I must say that this requirement for permits is a sledgehammer approach to a non-problem, showing a lack of common sense. After all, the forests of the north-west are packed full of junk and litter (much of it left by the FC themselves), and crowds of people regularly trample their way merrily (and relatively harmlessly) on and off the paths everywhere you go. It speaks volumes to me that they use the phrase "If you wish to place a geocache on our land..." - no, it's OUR land: you're just appointed to manage it!

 

HH

[+Haggis Hunter]

The rules preclude the placing of caches where a fee is chargeable for access.

Not quite true. The guidelines for placing a commercial cache boldly states - 'Some exceptions can be made. In these rare situations, permission can be given by the Geocaching.com web site. However, permission should be asked first before posting. If you are in doubt, ask first.'

 

So they certainly DO NOT prevent or make it impossible to place a cache that a fee may be asked for. I know they have gave me permission, I've just got to finalise the placement details with the large Scottish land owner/manager of the cache site.

[+windywalkers]

If I was likely to want to place a cache in such an area, I certainly would not agree to the conditions attached to the permit (even if it was free). I'm not going to agree to make myself liable for compensation should they blame my cache for damage caused by visitors, for instance, but this is just what you have to agree to. The banning of ammo boxes seems a bit arbitrary too, particularly when you see them used as cache boxes by the FC themselves (I'm not sure what they keep in them).

 

Do the FC procedures also apply to other geocaching listing sites, or is it a restriction only for geocaching.com?

The temptation (for some) might be to place the cache (without a permit or permission), but then advertise it via a cache listings site that did not use the review process - and at the same time use "advanced" hiding techniques to ensure that the FC is unaware of the cache presence.

 

I must say that this requirement for permits is a sledgehammer approach to a non-problem, showing a lack of common sense. After all, the forests of the north-west are packed full of junk and litter (much of it left by the FC themselves), and crowds of people regularly trample their way merrily (and relatively harmlessly) on and off the paths everywhere you go. It speaks volumes to me that they use the phrase "If you wish to place a geocache on our land..." - no, it's OUR land: you're just appointed to manage it!

 

HH

well said i wanted to write somthing like that but did not know how quite to put it gold star for you on this

[+Moote]

Don't we own this land anyway, after all it is publicly funded

[+Pieman]

I hate to be the person offering an argument for the FC here, as the fee is clearly disproportionate for one or two caches, but I don't think the principal is necessarily wrong that a public body should charge. For example if an orienteering event was planned on FC land they may well incur costs and £50 for such a event may be reasonable. In approving a cache location in a responsible manner they will incur some costs and it is reasonable that their should be a charge for this unless we think that people who have no interest in geocaching should subsidise our hobby.

 

I would rather a (small) charge be levied than the path of least resistance be taken where caches are rejected on the basis that it is easier to say "no" than "yes".