Bad News

[nobby.nobbs]

once a charge has been accepted we set a precedent.

 

there will then only be more places wishing to charge us and that charge will increase yearly. don't let the genie out of the bottle.

 

and what's the charge for? the only admin that they need to do is to make a note of who's paid the charge... no charge then no admin.

[+Happy Humphrey]

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".

I know you're talking about the principle, but you've given a bad example. It's a matter of proportion.

 

I've been to an orienteering event, and there's no comparison with a geocache. The former has hundreds of competitors and officials charging around the forest for hours, all at the same time, with extra car parking, temporary fences, control stations, makeshift changing areas and administration marquees etc.

So I would expect the FC to charge for a permit, and attach various conditions to the agreement.

 

The latter has the occasional casual visitor to some obscure part of the forest, who might turn over the odd log or move a pile of sticks or two. Probably a similar impact to a dog walker - and would you expect to have to pay if you encourage a few extra people to walk their dogs in a particular woodland area? Or to commit yourself to paying for any damage which could be attributed to any of them?

 

The only admin required really is for us to supply the FC with the locations of the caches, so as part of their normal work they can keep an eye on the surrounding areas and report any that are causing a problem. If they learn that we can have any problem caches removed or re-sited at the drop of a hat, they should become a bit less unreasonable with their demands.

 

Has anyone actually convinced the FC of the low-impact nature of this pastime, or do they also equate it with an orienteering event?

 

HH

Edited June 29, 2006 by Happy Humphrey

[+The Forester]

It's unfortunate that any part of the Forestry Commision is being inculcated with the Thatcherite/Blairite dogma that greed is good and that altruism is for sissies.

 

If approving cache placement is the right thing to do, then cache placement should be approved. If a demand for £50 (or £500 or whatever figure is dreamed up by the bureaucrats of the civil service) makes cache placement approval right or wrong, then clearly there's something very whiffy about the value judgement of the people who believe that a demand for money should be made.

 

GC.com/GAGB have done the right thing by walking away from such a demand for money. Encouraging greedy landowners to be greedy would be a very slippery slope for any of us to step on. Once one major landowner starts to squeeze geocaching for money, others are sure to follow suit. Remember that vast areas of land in the UK are in the hands of surprisingly few landowners and most of them talk to eachother. In Scotland more than a quarter of the total landmass is owned by just 66 landowners and more than three quarters of the area of Scotland is owned by just 1,250 landowners.

 

Once one owner starts to get greedy, the others will feel left out if they don't also wring money out of geocaching. Of course it will be the best plots of land that we have to pay for geocaching on first.

 

For exactly the same reason that GC.com rules forbid the placement of caches where a fee is charged by the landownower/operator, so too they should ban the placement of caches where a fee is charged for the placement of caches. After all, there's little difference between the fee being demanded and the operating principle of all protection rackets. The racketeers demand money with the implied threat that if their demands for dosh are not met, the cache will be destroyed or removed. Compliance with the demands of racketeers is actually the cause of the racketeering. The racket fails when people just say no.

 

If we give in to such demands by publically owned outfits which are, ostensibly at least, answerable to our elected representatives then you can be sure that private landlords will smell money and will 'justify' their own demands for money on the basis that if the State can make such demands then for-profit enterprises should too. That really wouldn't be in the interests of geocaching in general and would probably result in caches being placed against landowners's wishes and listed on other listing sites such as Terracacching.com.

[+Pieman]

 

I know you're talking about the principle, but you've given a bad example. It's a matter of proportion.

 

I've been to an orienteering event, and there's no comparison with a geocache. The former has hundreds of competitors and officials charging around the forest for hours, all at the same time, with extra car parking, temporary fences, control stations, makeshift changing areas and administration marquees etc.

So I would expect the FC to charge for a permit, and attach various conditions to the agreement.

 

The latter has the occasional casual visitor to some obscure part of the forest, who might turn over the odd log or move a pile of sticks or two. Probably a similar impact to a dog walker - and would you expect to have to pay if you encourage a few extra people to walk their dogs in a particular woodland area? Or to commit yourself to paying for any damage which could be attributed to any of them?

 

The only admin required really is for us to supply the FC with the locations of the caches, so as part of their normal work they can keep an eye on the surrounding areas and report any that are causing a problem. If they learn that we can have any problem caches removed or re-sited at the drop of a hat, they should become a bit less unreasonable with their demands.

 

Has anyone actually convinced the FC of the low-impact nature of this pastime, or do they also equate it with an orienteering event?

 

HH

Of course, I agree with the above.

 

However much people are told of the low impact nature of geocaching, I know people often don't beleive it until they see it. Preconceptions are very powerful- as a different example, I always tell landowners that burying a cache is not allowed- and back this up in writing- this hasn't stopped me being refused a cache placement as the owner didn't want their land dug up!

 

To answer The Forester's point, I doubt very much this is a case of greed- the amount of money they could raise here is insignificant. I'm afraid it's a bad case of bureaucracy.

[+lathama]

At the end of the day FC have said that no caches can be placed in this region.

What is stopping a random cacher (who doesnt frequent the forums) and so doesnt know about the desicion which has been taken, going out into the woods and hiding a cache.

Then when they come to submit the site they insert in the permission box someting along the lines of "I spoke to the ranger of the woods and showed him the location of my new cache. He is perfectly happy for this cache to be placed here and has told me that he will monitor the disturbance around it at regular intervals".

There is no wy of proving either way if this has taken place. BUT to a reviewers eyes the cache has been placed correctly and permission sort and got. Thus the cache is ok to be published.

There are huge flaws in what is being said here - as pointed out just, so maybe we should just ignore the ruling and go on as well have been for ages!

[Lactodorum]

At the end of the day FC have said that no caches can be placed in this region.

What is stopping a random cacher (who doesnt frequent the forums) and so doesnt know about the desicion which has been taken, going out into the woods and hiding a cache.

Then when they come to submit the site they insert in the permission box someting along the lines of "I spoke to the ranger of the woods and showed him the location of my new cache. He is perfectly happy for this cache to be placed here and has told me that he will monitor the disturbance around it at regular intervals".

There is no wy of proving either way if this has taken place. BUT to a reviewers eyes the cache has been placed correctly and permission sort and got. Thus the cache is ok to be published.

There are huge flaws in what is being said here - as pointed out just, so maybe we should just ignore the ruling and go on as well have been for ages!

In this instance we would believe the cacher and all things being equal, publish the cache. We take the voew that the vast majority of cachers (like the vast majority of "normal" people) are honest decent folks. By all means try and ignore the ruling but the reviewers always check the cache location and if we see it is on FC land we WILL ask for permission details.

[+Happy Humphrey]

At the end of the day FC have said that no caches can be placed in this region.

What is stopping a random cacher (who doesnt frequent the forums) and so doesnt know about the desicion which has been taken, going out into the woods and hiding a cache.

Indeed, and what if they do know about the decision, and therefore list it on an alternative web site that is not bothered about such niceties - as The Forester rightly points out? Rather than archive and retrieve your cache, one could simply archive it (perhaps move it slightly) and re-list it elsewhere.

 

In my view the FC is asking for trouble with this attitude: in practice, it isn't possible to "ban" geocaching in areas that are accessible to the public, and by the same token it isn't possible to force geocachers into paying for cache placing. All they are encouraging is a breakdown of the voluntary system whereby we politely arrange the cache placement with the landowner's permission.

 

There was a similar agreement (though without a payment required) drafted by the Isle of Man Forestry division, and sent to me for comment. I pointed out the "sledgehammer to crack a nut" aspect, (plus the admin involved for no good reason) and suggested a more passive, monitoring approach: which seems to be working well. Should the forestry division become unhappy with any particular cache, we simply point out the problem to the cache owner and work together (low key) to ensure that the cache is modified or re-sited. Very grown-up and sensible! This approach has already been used successfully in the case of one cache, and I'm happy to liaise with interested parties should any other difficulties arise.

 

It seems to me that the FC could also have a list of local geocaching contacts who volunteer to sort out any problem caches (or they could contact GAGB who maintain such a list). Remember that such problems don't normally tend to be the urgent life-or-death type: so if a cache that was encouraging too many people to climb over a fence (for instance) is reported, the volunteer could make sure that the cache owner and reviewer are aware, and the cache disabled until modified (or archived).

 

HH

[+The Forester]

the amount of money they could raise here is insignificant.

 

The charge is only £58.75 per person -- at present.

 

It would be naïve in the extreme to presume that they will not jack up that price to whatever they think the market will stand. It is the natural behaviour of any monopolist to do exactly that. It starts out as a modest fee and then progressively gets more and more expensive until they hit the law of diminishing returns by killing their own captive market by overcharging.

 

Think back to when they slapped the Landfill Tax on us. It started at a fairly modest £7 per tonne, but has since gone up in steps to the present level of £21/tonne and is going up to £35/tonne. Actually, that's £41.125 per tonne because VAT is charged on top of the landfill Tax just like VAT will be charged on top of the FC's Geocaching tax.

 

It would be deeply stupid to presume that this Geocaching tax being proposed by one government department will not be jacked up, just like the Landfill tax was. Once one landowning or land controlling department starts to charge the new Geocaching tax, you can be sure that others will follow the lead. Large areas of the UK are owned or controlled by government departments and all government deparments now have to obey the Thatcherite edict that they must think in an "entrepreurial" way. Even the military are being exhorted by central government to raise money by charging fees for services provided. This new Geocaching tax will spread like wildfire if we accept it.

 

That's why I think we should reject it completely. If we accept the NW England bit of the FC charging the tax, you can be sure that other FC areas in England will want their pound of flesh too. What do you think will be the reaction of the Scottish Forestry Commission to seeing that their English counterparts are charging £58.75 per head for geocachers to place caches? How long would it be before the Welsh FC follows suit?

 

Once the Forestry Commission has got into the habit of stiffing geocachers for money, how long before the MoD civil servants decide to do the same? How long before other major landowning NGOs, such as the National Trust, decide that imposing their own privatised form of the new geocaching tax would be a nice little earner? How long before the Crown Estates decide the same thing? Once the habit spreads to all government departments and quangos, how long before local government decides to follow suit?

 

Pieman is quite right that this tax has come about as a result of bad bureaucracy. That's one of the bad things about it. The civil service is full of bad bureaucracy and one way that bad civil servants can keep in the good books of their Minister is to present him/her with an unexpected and novel form of painless revenue raising.

 

The way to prevent this new tax from taking off and spreading like some kind of malignant disease is quite simply to reject it completely, right at the beginning. I'm glad that GAGB/GC.com have done the right thing. They were also quite right to keep the lines of communication open. This has been a bad decision by somebody in one area office of the FC and bad decisions can be reversed.

 

At present the Forestry Commission's website creates the false impression that their levy has been agreed to by GAGB. That's somewhat less than honest as the Association has refused to agree to the charge and the GAGB website clearly lists FC NW as "Permission refused". A visitor to the FC website, if unaware that the levy has been declined, might be fooled by the FC being what is politely called "economical with the truth" and might wrongly get the impression that it is normal to have to pay money to create a cache. That incomplete level of honesty and transparency is an unpleasant stain on a thoroughly reputable organisation and doesn't sit particularly well with their opening remark in which they say that they are "keen to support" geocaching.

 

One of the things I particularly like about geocaching is that it is one of rather few of life's pleasures which isn't either illegal or taxed or causes cancer in rats. Let's keep geocaching that way, please.

 

Spare a thought also for the prolific cache-creators. If every major landowner got the idea that they can soak cache-creators for fifty or sixty quid, it would rapidly become cost-prohibitive to place caches at more than one or two locations or types of location. In Scotland we have a cacher who has created 150 caches, in a huge variety of locales. If he were to be skinned for fifty quid by every landowner upon whose land he's placed a cache, it would cost him a bloody fortune.

[+Johnmelad]

"Over 300 million visits are made to England's woodlands and forests each year. These visits can be to large forests, forest parks, privately owned or community woodlands. the reasons to visit can be as diverse as the forests themselves. from the simple enjoyment of a peaceful walk in the woods to organised events such as forest drives or holidays, the common element is the tranquility and beauty of a forest.

 

Whatever the reason to visit, there is always help on hand.

 

Within major public forests you will find a full range of services including car parks, picnic sites, camping and caravan sites, holiday cabins and visitor centres. Maps and guides, waymarked trails, cycle ways, safe horse-riding routes and a network of recreation rangers will pointb you in the right direction or explain more about the diverse nature of the forest.

 

We want people to visit and enjoy the forests and woods in our care.

 

Many private owners also welcome visitors and willingly open their land for public access. The Forestry Commission can help with this through grants for facilities and information about the woods.

 

No city, town or village in England is more than a one hour drive from a forest and, while people ofetn travel to visit particular attractions, the increase in community woodlands through, for example, the work of the Community Forests, the National Forest, the National Trust and other projects, has brought access to woodlands far closer to the urban communities."

 

Seems to me that all are welcome, but only Geocachers are asked to pay!

 

I have Emailed rebecca.britton@forestry.gsi.gov.uk who appears to be the contact for the whole of the UK, if we are to mass mail anyone it should be her. I am also considering writing to my local Lake District news-papers. Anyone want to suggest the wording?

Edited June 29, 2006 by Johnmelad

[+Jaz666]

Anyone want to suggest the wording?

 

This would make a good soundbyte......

"A days-worth of mountainbikers can cause far more damage to a forest than a years-worth of Geocachers".

[+Pieman]

 

The charge is only £58.75 per person -- at present.

 

It would be naïve in the extreme to presume that they will not jack up that price to whatever they think the market will stand. It is the natural behaviour of any monopolist to do exactly that. It starts out as a modest fee and then progressively gets more and more expensive until they hit the law of diminishing returns by killing their own captive market by overcharging.

 

I would be more worried about the above scenario happening if they hadn't already hit the charging ceiling as few people will pay £50! I don't think there is any price they can charge that would make them an amount of money that would be worth the internal bureaucracy that they have created. So I don't think we should get too worked up that this is going to spread- if this is the FC's idea of a money making scheme I think they need a new business manager!

[+Kitty Hawk]

Anyone want to suggest the wording?

 

This would make a good soundbyte......

"A days-worth of mountainbikers can cause far more damage to a forest than a years-worth of Geocachers".

 

Please No.

 

The mountain biking community have spent 20 years dealing with this kind of prejudice and through a great deal of hard work the 99% of sensible bikers have built up relationships with various countryside agencies that now work fine.

 

Yes, there are some berks who mountain bike. There are some berks who do caching. Don't tarnish a whole community for the sake of a minority, we don't like it when it happens to us.

 

How about this soundbite as an example "A years worth of ramblers don't create a cachers superhighway to an off footpath spot and spoil foliage looking for non biodegradable boxes"

[nobby.nobbs]

i would second that. don't tarnish a different group to make us look good.

 

caching can stand on it's own merits with cito etc. within any group of people you will get those idiots who will do damage but not in the main.

 

i think maybe the back off approach and let things lie quiet for a little while is the best approach. it worked for the new forest and we now have a usable agreement down here.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Yes, there are some berks who mountain bike. There are some berks who do caching. Don't tarnish a whole community for the sake of a minority, we don't like it when it happens to us.

To be fair, I think that the point is that mountain bikers/ramblers/dog walkers etc all leave their mark, no matter how careful they are: but due to the huge numbers participating, the cumulative effect is significant - unlike the small number of occasional geocaching visitors. So it's not tarnishing the other activities, it's just putting things in perspective.

 

HH

[Lactodorum]

i would second that. don't tarnish a different group to make us look good.

 

caching can stand on it's own merits with cito etc. within any group of people you will get those idiots who will do damage but not in the main.

 

i think maybe the back off approach and let things lie quiet for a little while is the best approach. it worked for the new forest and we now have a usable agreement down here.

I totally agree!

 

Let's put this one to bed for the time being and move on. Maybe they'll be more amenable in the future but "hassling" them won't help. Please forget the idea of mass mailings etc. and get on with enjoying the lovely summer weather many of us are enjoying at the moment by getting out and doing a bit of caching.

 

I think this thread has run its course now so I'll close it.

Edited June 30, 2006 by Lactodorum