Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak

[+The Forester]

DEFRA has confirmed an outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease near Guildford and has imposed restrictions around 51° 14.880N 00° 40.572W.

 

The 3km zone includes geocaches such as GCAF37 A Slice of Christmas Pie which is closely adjacent to a public footpath which runs through the infected farm.

 

In view of the extremely serious consequences to the country and the countryside arising from the spread of this awful livestock disease, I would strongly recommend that all cachers in the area carefully consider whether they should go into the 3km restricted area at all and should also carefully consider the wisdom of going caching in the 10km zone.

 

I would also suggest that GC.com give careful consideration to temporarily suspending all the caches within the 3km zone without further delay.

 

Please be aware that FMD is easily spread by feet and vehicles tyres.

 

Edited to add the DEFRA sketchmap of the affected area.

Edited August 3, 2007 by The Forester

[+Cache U Nutter]

As news trickles in about the latest outbreak of foot and mouth in Surrey [ my county], let us all hope that the cases are isolated and that the countryside access this time will be kept open. Whilst our thoughts are with the farmers and those involved at close hand with the problem, let us hope that this time the Environmental agencies and government are able to sort things out this time after the debarkle of the previous outbreaks.

If not ,Our beloved pastime will be knocked for six as well as the livelyhoods of everyone relying on the countryside for a living.

We await further reports and until then vigulance from everyone will be the order of the day.

[Edgemaster]

BBC News Article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6930684.stm

[Edgemaster]

Google Maps/Earth version of the exclusion zones.

 

(Also, the other thread on this topic should probably be merged)

[SlytherinAlex]

Make sure that someone tells John Stead.

[Lactodorum]

I've merged the two FMD topics into this one.

 

Thank you Forester for the cache info and I have as suggested immediately disabled it. I have also checked out other caches in the Protection zone and have disabled those too.

 

I well remember the effects on Geocaching of the 2001 outbreak and trust that this time the Government get it right. Having moved from an Urban area I now live next door to a sheep farm and understand the REAL concerns of the rural community. While we Geocachers are merely inconvenienced, many people are now living in fear of their livelihoods. Fingers crossed it is an isolated case.

Edited August 4, 2007 by Lactodorum

[+The Forester]

Well done, Lacto.

 

One of many lessons learned from the 2001 fiasco, which was a genuine disaster for the rural community of huge swathes of Britain, was that inaction in the earliest stages of such an outbreak leads directly to the exponential spread of this extremely virulent disease. The gumment seems to have reacted swiftly and decisively this time.

 

I'm glad to see that GC.com has taken decisive action within the 3km Protection Zone and is carefully considering the options within the 10km Surveillance Zone.

[+The Northumbrian]

This latest outbreak has caused a knock effect in Northumberland with Powburn Agricutural show and sheep dog trials due to staged today, is now cancelled .

Nige

[Deceangi]

The outbreak is having a major affect on all rural community's. I have just returned from our vets who are currently overstretched visiting the local farming community to carry out checks at the request of the farmers.

 

The Temporary loss of access to caches within the affected area to the UK Geocaching community is a minor inconvenience, compared to the disease spreading and the UK caching community taking some of the blame through inaction. You have to remember people will be looking for scape goats if it spreads, regardless of the actual blame.

 

Both Eckington and Lactodorum are currently both on breaks, so I would ask people to be patient with me whilst I work through both a list of caches within the affected area and the UK queue.

 

Deceangi

[+Eckington]

I am out on the Isle of Man.

 

There has been a profound knock on effect here to protect the livestock.

 

Next Saturday's Royal Manx Show is cancelled as are all "countryside sporting events", this includes motor cycle trials and mountain bike events.

 

The Government here has asked people to avoid walking, cycling and recreational activities in all countryside areas - suggesting these activities be contained on the beaches.

 

As far as we are concerned that means no caching at all, and we are very happy to comply to ensure, as far as we can, the safety of Manx animals and the livelihood of the farming industry here.

 

Ecky

[+Eclectic Penguin]

I had a sinking feeling this afternoon when I heard this news as I was driving to Rhossili bay on the Gower to meet with some friends for a picnic (it poured down with rain, but we had a great time) and a walk (taking in a couple of caches on the way). This was emphasized when we saw the piles of disinfected straw that we were asked to walk through as we walked into the National Trust area.

 

Initially my thoughts were with friends who were so badly affected by the previous bout.

 

I then got thinking about how many of my own caches would need to be disabled if this got out of control - IIRC, a couple require access to farm land via public rights of way and if this spreads I'll suspend these without hesitation especially if it comes remotely close to South Wales.

 

Others are on open access land where sheep and cattle are normally allowed to freely graze - I'm not really sure what to do about these should this escalate. I know this affects an awful lot of other caches too. Again, if it gets anywhere close to here, I'll immediately disable the caches.

 

For me, Geocaching is a great hobby that I thoroughly enjoy, but farming is a farmer's livelihood and I'd never want to jeopardise anyone's livelihood for the sake of a hobby.

Edited August 4, 2007 by Eclectic Penguin

[Nediam]

Latest from the BBC - Possibly better news? (fingers crossed)

[+scaw]

Here we go again

 

Mrs Farmer (scaw)

[+Learned Gerbil]

The zone has now been extended to the NE to include Pirbright. At least two large animal feed distributors are now within the 3km zone.

[Deceangi]

The revised boundary's for the 2 zones it's in pdf scroll to page 3

[+Eclectic Penguin]

We all desperately hope that this remains contained, but I see evidence all around me that farms are taking this very seriously with disinfected straw at their entrances etc.

 

Can I ask - what should I be doing with regards to my caches as a precaution and should I be taking action now even if South Wales appears quite a distance from this outbreak?

 

I have two types of caches that would possibly be affected.

 

1) Those on open access "moorland", on mountain sides where sheep and cattle are currently grazing.

2) A couple involve a trek on public footpaths through farms where sheep/cattle are in fields.

 

Should I consider temporarily shelving these immediately, or should I wait for a more general announcement with regards to what to do about public footpaths etc?

 

I take this very seriously and have already worded a preamble to place on the top of any cache descriptions that I temporarily disable should this become necessary. if 1 & 2 become necessary, this will shelve well over half my caches, but I have no problem with doing this if it protects one of the most important industries in this area.

 

I know Geocaching was in its infancy when the last bout happened - but what happened then in these two scenarios then?

[Deceangi]

We all desperately hope that this remains contained, but I see evidence all around me that farms are taking this very seriously with disinfected straw at their entrances etc.

 

Can I ask - what should I be doing with regards to my caches as a precaution and should I be taking action now even if South Wales appears quite a distance from this outbreak?

 

I have two types of caches that would possibly be affected.

 

1) Those on open access "moorland", on mountain sides where sheep and cattle are currently grazing.

2) A couple involve a trek on public footpaths through farms where sheep/cattle are in fields.

 

Should I consider temporarily shelving these immediately, or should I wait for a more general announcement with regards to what to do about public footpaths etc?

 

I take this very seriously and have already worded a preamble to place on the top of any cache descriptions that I temporarily disable should this become necessary. if 1 & 2 become necessary, this will shelve well over half my caches, but I have no problem with doing this if it protects one of the most important industries in this area.

 

I know Geocaching was in its infancy when the last bout happened - but what happened then in these two scenarios then?

 

The Welsh Assembly have stated that currently there are no plans to close down Public Footpaths and CROW land at the moment. But they are continually monitoring the situation, and have posted a request for all farmers to be vigilant and to have their live stock checked. As far as they are concerned the countryside is open as usual at the moment.

[+Eclectic Penguin]

Thanks - I'll keep a close eye on what they say.

[+The Forester]

Right from the beginning, as far back as last Thursday when the government was first formally informed of the outbreak, it has been something of an open secret in the beef farming community that the two prime suspects for the origin of the disease's spread were the government's own lab at Pirbright and the government's own supplier of FMD vaccine, also at Pirbright. On Friday morning, when the government formally issued the 1km zone around the site of the first publically admitted infection site, I was asked to use my GIS to measure the distance of the spread and to examine the wind velocity records from the third week of July onwards. Today is the fourth day in which the Pirbright plume is the prime suspect as the originating vector of the current outbreak.

 

Yesterday's increase of the area of the two zones came as no surprise to anybody, I think. What surprised me this evening was the fact that there were still any caches within the openly published Protection Zone which have not been temporarily suspended. In view of the fact that there is usually a timelag between people reading a cachepage and actually going into the field to hunt that cache, and in view of the very prompt actions which have been taken by the government and by the rural community, it was regrettable that all caches within the inner zone had not been temporarily suspended. FMD is an extremely infectious disease and it is surely well known that the disease can so easily be transferred from one location to another on the feet of people and dogs and on people's clothes and cars and on the fur of dogs.

 

Although the countryside is open, on the British mainland at least, surely a bit of commonsense should be used within the control zones when considering whether to encourage walkers to venture into the countryside within a 3km Protection Zone? Surely very special consideration, on a case by case basis, should be given to each cache whose location or potential approach or egress routes are closely adjacent to the inner 3km Protection Zone(s) and are located within the 10km Surveillance Zone(s)?

 

Here's a sketchmap of the zones which were promulgated yesterday and early this afternoon

 

The coordinates of the main centres of the zones are:

51° 14.880N 0° 40.572W

and

51° 16.788N 0° 38.100W

and

51° 10.469N 0° 41.537W

 

The lozenge shape of the zones does not readily lend itself to the GC.com cache database search system, so some paperless cachers may perhaps want to electronically plot the shape on digimaps such as MemoryMap. If so, the straightline sides of the 3km zone run from:

51° 15.901N 0° 42.574W to 51° 17.809N 0° 40.103W

and

51° 13.624N 0° 42.197W to 51° 15.532N 0° 39.728W

[+rutson]

What surprised me this evening was the fact that there were still any caches within the openly published Protection Zone which have not been temporarily suspended.

 

Why does that surprise you? If I had any caches in that area, I wouldn't have known about it but for the forum post on here and not all cachers read these forums.

[+The Forester]

I was adversely surprised that the GC.com reps had failed to take appropriate action, despite them being aware of the locations of all the zones.

[Deceangi]

I was adversely surprised that the GC.com reps had failed to take appropriate action, despite them being aware of the locations of all the zones.

 

currently I'm covering the whole of the UK on my own, as both Eckington and Lactodorum are on breaks. This means reviewing and publishing caches, dealing with peoples query's via email and other forms of communication, and Moderating this forum. The first I was aware of the extended exclusion zones was when I read this thread. All this on top of being a full time carer. If you had emailed me directly rather than expecting me to be a position of knowing what is happening all the time. I would have actioned immediately the 3 caches you kindly flagged up, and which came to my attention due to them being on one of a large no of bookmarks that I personally use. The email notifications for all these bookmarks are checked when I get a spare moment.

 

Please remember Reviewers are Volunteers who give their time freely, to aid in the management of this time, if the exclusion zones are extended and you become aware of more caches that need Disabling due to this fact. Please not only post a note to the cache page, but email me directly via the email address in my profile. As I use the Gmail notification tool, if I am at my PC and see your email address pop up I will immediately check out your message. Anything sent via GC will wait until I have a spare moment.

[nobby.nobbs]

Forrester, this is meant as a sensible suggestion not an attack.

 

You are monitoring the situation on a real time basis? So why don't you make life easier for all concerned. as and when you become aware of a cache within the zone you send an email to the cache owner and to Deceangi so that between them they can disable the cache.

 

That way hopefully we can keep up to date with the situation.

 

It might be an idea if the gc.com powers that be send an email to all uk cachers, like the normal weekly one, advising them to check on the current situation prior to caching. Then this should help avoid the time lag of information.

[+Happy Humphrey]

It's appropriate to avoid caching in the area immediately affected by a FMD case, and I would encourage any genuine bans to be observed. But before panicking and cancelling you weekend caching trip, cast your mind back to the previous outbreak/debacle, mis-handled by MAFF so badly that the whole department was replaced. It was realised too late that closing footpaths caused an enormous amount of damage to thousands of businesses. The infinitesimal (if not zero: the phrase used by DEFRA is "vanishingly small") chance that a passing walker could spread the disease was far outweighed by the very real likelihood of severe loss to the tourism and leisure-related trade, which in many rural areas is the most important industry. The restrictions were lifted within a month, but the damage had been done as people unnecessarily stayed away from the countryside for weeks afterwards.

So this time, unless you were planning to visit a FMD-affected farm, you'd be doing no-one a favour by staying at home.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Double post.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Happy Humphrey

[+Rambling Meanderers]

I've never felt the need to post in these forums before, but I thought that "what surprised me this evening was the fact that there were still any caches within the openly published Protection Zone which have not been temporarily suspended" was a bit of a cheap shot. As were the second and third paragraphs of Foresters earlier post #19 which moved away from giving out useful information. When you know a lot about a situation it's sometimes easy to forget that other people to not.

 

What Deceangi doesn't mention in his latest post is that he already explained in an earlier post that he was by himself this week. I would have thought the easiest way for Forester to deal with things would be to put notes on the relevant pages (maybe Forester has been doing this anyway, I've not checked?) or email as nobby.nobbs suggested.

 

I don't think any criticism of the reviewers was deserved (no matter how veiled), and even if it was then the forum isn't the place for it.

[+Write and Mane]

I've never felt the need to post in these forums before, but I thought that "what surprised me this evening was the fact that there were still any caches within the openly published Protection Zone which have not been temporarily suspended" was a bit of a cheap shot. As were the second and third paragraphs of Foresters earlier post #19 which moved away from giving out useful information. When you know a lot about a situation it's sometimes easy to forget that other people to not.

 

What Deceangi doesn't mention in his latest post is that he already explained in an earlier post that he was by himself this week. I would have thought the easiest way for Forester to deal with things would be to put notes on the relevant pages (maybe Forester has been doing this anyway, I've not checked?) or email as nobby.nobbs suggested.

 

I don't think any criticism of the reviewers was deserved (no matter how veiled), and even if it was then the forum isn't the place for it.

 

The above post was logged even as I was trying to compose a similar message. I don't post very often, but felt I had to do so today.

 

Thank you for expressing my thoughts so well.

 

Don't forget that Deceangi has to eat and sleep as well

Edited August 6, 2007 by Write and Mane

[+Malpas Wanderer]

I've never felt the need to post in these forums before, but I thought that "what surprised me this evening was the fact that there were still any caches within the openly published Protection Zone which have not been temporarily suspended" was a bit of a cheap shot. As were the second and third paragraphs of Foresters earlier post #19 which moved away from giving out useful information. When you know a lot about a situation it's sometimes easy to forget that other people to not.

 

What Deceangi doesn't mention in his latest post is that he already explained in an earlier post that he was by himself this week. I would have thought the easiest way for Forester to deal with things would be to put notes on the relevant pages (maybe Forester has been doing this anyway, I've not checked?) or email as nobby.nobbs suggested.

 

I don't think any criticism of the reviewers was deserved (no matter how veiled), and even if it was then the forum isn't the place for it.

 

The above post was logged even as I was trying to compose a similar message. I don't post very often, but felt I had to do so today.

 

Thank you for expressing my thoughts so well.

 

Don't forget that Deceangi has to eat and sleep as well

 

I've often wondered how our esteemed reviewers manage to cope with the exponential workload which the geocaching phenomen creates.

 

The whole UK geocaching activity revolves around the dedication of our three reviewers, and evidence of their response in temporarily disabling caches in the affected zone has been evident in the notifications I recieve, maybe they have not covered all the caches yet but surely this should be a time of support not criticism.

[+scaw]

I am a farmers wife living on a farm in Cumbria (2001 Cumbria was more or less wiped out) so i do know what i am talking about............

Just calm down go about your caching sensibly and dont jump on the meia hype band wagon.

This is a terrible situation I know having been through it but just be sensible

[+JackieC]

What surprised me this evening was the fact that there were still any caches within the openly published Protection Zone which have not been temporarily suspended. In view of the fact that there is usually a timelag between people reading a cachepage and actually going into the field to hunt that cache, and in view of the very prompt actions which have been taken by the government and by the rural community, it was regrettable that all caches within the inner zone had not been temporarily suspended.

 

I'm another forum user who tends not to post into discussions.

 

Couple of things, firstly, I can't see how the immediate suspension of the caches in the affected areas is so critical, it won't stop every cacher from going. You acknowledge in your post that there is a time lag between reading the cachepage and going to the cache, so its not going to stop everyone.

 

I am one of those people how tend to plan caching trip in advance, and I don't check the status of each one again just before I set off. The more advanced of us who have pocketqueries for downloading cache info will only do this one or two times a week (I doubt people do it every day, correct me if I'm wrong anyone).

 

I've read quite a number of cache logs recently that mention 'didn't realise it had been archived/muggled/lost/disabled as we'd downloaded/printed the info off earlier'. I've done it myself.

 

Any footpaths on affected farms are closed off (which would then deter most people, it would me as the entire area is swarming with journalists! ) and DEFRA are going to great lengths to emphasise that the countryside is open, so I don't see the problem (is it me?)

 

Secondly, I live and work in the agricultural community, and I was working in the middle of one of the Yorkshire hotspots during the last outbreak. I have followed all the updates closely too, but the majority of the UK only knows what they see on the news, and the map doesn't tend to pop up much on the news reports. So its easy to miss thst there are now two protection zones, its even easier to miss if you're doing the work of three reviewers (not reps).

 

I'm not attacking or defending anyone, there seems to be some valid points on either side, BUT (and there is always a but) I'd just like to give some common sense advice to cachers in Surrey area (which everyone already knows but it doesn no harm to repeat).

 

1. Don't stop caching, just pick you're caches wisely

2. If you come across a footbath/wet straw/dipping point please use it

3. Keep your dogs on leads

4. Avoid direct contact with livestock

5. Clean your boots between caching trips.

 

Thanks

[+careygang]

There has been some real common sense in the past few posts. Let's not get carried away by the media hype.

Forrester, please calm down - our reviewers do an excellent job and it is not their role to go disabling caches just because of an incident.

 

If a footpath is closed then there will be signs out, apart from that, live with it and stop being the fun police. The official line is that the countryside is open, unless it is shut. Lets not go imposing our own restrictions. JackieC, Happy Humphry and scaw, amongst others, have got it right.

 

Apart from anything else, lets not over-inflate the importance of geocachers in the use of footpaths. When compared with general rambling, and dog walkers, cachers are a drop in the ocean, so just take a 'chill pill'.

Edited August 6, 2007 by careygang

[+garyhoney]

Regards the common sense approach.

 

The following Waverley Council page states that all footpaths are open except where they pass through the infected property (Admittedly this is only for the southern protection zone).

 

Also DEFRA explain here why they want the countryside left open.

 

I would suggest that any countryside user whether cacher, dog walker, cyclist etc should do as they would before but obey any closure notices (As you legally should) plus bear in mind the simple rules mentioned by JackieC.

 

My two pennies worth

 

Cheers

Gary (An east Surrey cacher)

Edited August 6, 2007 by garyhoney

[+Custheyder]

Another here on the Isle of Man...

 

I was out and about at the weekend, there are now signs up around most of the upland areas of the Island informing the public that the areas are closed. Having spoken to the Department of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries here on the Island the ban will be in place for a minimum for 21 to 28 days.

 

Choose caches carefully that do not take you onto farmland or near livestock, for us here, that's just about all of them with the exception of a few urban caches.

 

Cust.

 

BTW.... HH, your still devious, but we like it.

[+Eckington]

I was adversely surprised that the GC.com reps had failed to take appropriate action, despite them being aware of the locations of all the zones.

 

 

I also would like to remind you Chris, that our role as volunteer reviewers of caches is just that. We are reviewers. Deceangi, working on his own at the moment, is in constant contact both with Lactodorum and myself, and with Groundspeak, to try and get sensible messages out to ALL UK cachers.

 

However, it is also the responsibility of the cache owners, if they feel their caches are in compromised areas, and individual cache seekers, to ensure their actions do not contravene any of the local regulations/recommendations currently in place. It is better that they check local conditions and act accordingly to temp any of their caches they feel should be temped.

 

As mentioned elsewhere I am at present on the Isle of Man, and as another poster has suggested, caching on the island is largely closed down as a result of the local dept of Ag and Fish (I think I have got that right) ruling.

 

In other areas of the UK the closure is not as complete, indeed as I understand it - and I might be wrong - the government is still saying the countryside is not "closed".

 

So surely the message to all is check your local rulings and act as they suggest is necessary.

 

Ecky

[Nediam]

.....In other areas of the UK the closure is not as complete, indeed as I understand it - and I might be wrong - the government is still saying the countryside is not "closed"......

 

Quote from the DEFRA site link provided by "garyhoney"

 

"Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD): Countryside access and recreation

 

The countryside is open

 

Despite the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) on a farm in Surrey, the countryside remains open. There is no need for people to stop visiting the countryside and, at the present time, the only impacts on visitor attractions are those which result from the restrictions on animal movements and animal gatherings.

.

.

.

.

Access to land

 

We have learnt the lessons of the experience of the 2001 outbreak and would not close down the countryside if it is not justified by the disease risk. Current veterinary advice is that outside a protection zone, the risk of rights of way users and other visitors to the countryside spreading disease is low. Access to the countryside and in particular to footpaths, may be restricted but only within the Protection Zones (PZ) (areas of minimum 3km around an infected premises) if it is felt too risky to keep them open. Footpaths on the infected premises are closed."

Edited August 6, 2007 by Nediam

[+Happy Humphrey]

Good - an outbreak of common sense! Lessons learnt last time were that it's well nigh impossible to transfer FMD by walking through even infected fields, nor can it be passed on in the wind. It's not a robust virus. Transfer of livestock and crossover of farm workers caused the spread last time and MAFF/DEFRA were too busy blaming the ramblers to get on with proper restrictions.

The IOM reaction is typically silly: unless IOM DAFF believes that there are cases on the island it's just overreacting by closing the countryside (they LOVE closing things on the IOM, it makes minor officials feel powerful).

 

Nice to hear a new voice from the island, btw: welcome Custheyder!

[Lactodorum]

I have just returned from a couple of days away from computer access. Just before I left the FMD news broke and I managed to disable all the caches in the initial affected area. I also generated a list of those in the outer zone which Deceangi has been working through.

 

What do I see when I get back but a totally unwarranted attack on the UK reviewers for inaction although I suppose I wasn't surprised by who made it.

 

I was adversely surprised that the GC.com reps had failed to take appropriate action, despite them being aware of the locations of all the zones.

and

Well done, Lacto.

 

One of many lessons learned from the 2001 fiasco, which was a genuine disaster for the rural community of huge swathes of Britain, was that inaction in the earliest stages of such an outbreak leads directly to the exponential spread of this extremely virulent disease. The gumment seems to have reacted swiftly and decisively this time.

 

I'm glad to see that GC.com has taken decisive action within the 3km Protection Zone and is carefully considering the options within the 10km Surveillance Zone.

 

I find it it difficult to reconcile the two statements by the same person:

 

The reviewing team are VOLUNTEERS and while we try to make ourselves available as much as possible we do have other things in life to worry about. Eckington is currently on holiday, and Deceangi has a tremendous load in his domestic life which I happen to think he handles amazingly well. I realise that I dared to "take a couple of days off" to help a 90 year old gentleman with some essential home maintenance but I am offended at your accusation Forester.

 

What else do you suggest we could and should have done under the circumstances?

 

I would suggest that perhaps Cache Owners might have some responsibility too. They know the area of their caches much better than we do and I cannot imagine that anyone is unaware of the current situation and its possible consequences. I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, have considered what should be done with their caches without the need for the review team to jump on them.

 

And what about the responsibility of Cache Seekers to consider whether to go hunting? Why is it considered necessary to assume that Geocachers don't have sufficient common sense to police themselves in this matter? I happen to think that the vast majority of the Geocaching community are capable of behaving sensibly without some self professed "expert" telling them what they should and should not do. They have the information via many sources now to enable them to decide for themselves.

 

If you have sufficient cause to consider we are falling down on our responsibilities then please take your evidence to Groundspeak (appeals@geocaching.com) and we will be bound by their decision. After all, it is they who appointed us to represent them.

[+mongoose39uk]

Glass of water for Deceangi and a glass of each for Eckington and Lactodorum.

 

Just let the petty attacks wash over you.

[+careygang]

Lets turn this into a round of applause for the moderators.

 

What makes Forrester the self appointed regulator of when caches should be disabled? Our reviewers deserve our support for their calmness under an un-warranted assault. They are reviewers, not fun police.

 

If a cache is in the affected zone, why disable it? There will be a ruddy great sign banning access for everyone, not just geocachers. It makes no sense whatsoever to disable caches because of this. It won't stop the dog walker, cyclist, walker, runner, kid out playing etc etc. I just cannot fathom out the significance in the great scheme of things what disabling a few caches will do...

 

Three cheers for Deceangi, Eckington and Lactodorum.

Edited August 6, 2007 by careygang

[+Happy Humphrey]

Just to point out that it's the holiday season and if some cache owners are a little slow to respond to cries for cache disabling, it may be that they are unaware of the situation in Surrey and the Isle of Man (from their beach in Spain or wherever). Furthermore, they may be at a disadvantage when it comes to identifying and disabling caches in the two exclusion zones (I'm working using a PDA here, in a remote forest in France and don't have constant Internet access, for instance). So give it a fortnight before contacting owners to ask whether their cache should be disabled.

[+careygang]

Just to point out that it's the holiday season and if some cache owners are a little slow to respond to cries for cache disabling, it may be that they are unaware of the situation in Surrey and the Isle of Man (from their beach in Spain or wherever). Furthermore, they may be at a disadvantage when it comes to identifying and disabling caches in the two exclusion zones (I'm working using a PDA here, in a remote forest in France and don't have constant Internet access, for instance). So give it a fortnight before contacting owners to ask whether their cache should be disabled.

 

Why bother disabling?

 

Are we really saying that our fellow Cachers are stupid enough that if the cache is active, they will blunder in regardles of all the warning signs, but if it is disabled, they will happily leave the area well alone?

 

The whole basis of this thread quite frankly beggars belief. It was fine to bring up the subject, but to suggest that geocaching.com adopt a 'nanny state' attitude is just so wrong. If people are not capable of reading prohibition notices on footpaths, they shouldn't be allowed out without Matron's permission!!

[Lactodorum]

Why bother disabling?

While I have a lot of sympathy with your sentiments about the ever growing "Nanny State" mentality I would suggest that disabling caches only serves to emhasise the inadvisability of entering the restricted zone. Also it serves a helpful purpose is allowing cachers planning a trip to easily ignore those they can't presently get to.

 

You will notice they weren't archived, merely disabled.

 

I would also agree with your proposition that most if not all Geocachers are reasonable and sensible people so I have every confidence they will stay away.

[+scottpa100]

Just another point to throw in. When you use a GPS for routing in a car, some of them have a disclaimer saying that you should pay attention to road signs, law enforcement, and other changes. I think it is fair to say that this logic should apply with geocaching in general. If you're following that arrow on your GPS and you reach a stile which has a big DEFRA sign on it and may be black and yellow tape and the sign says that you should not cross that stile - I would truly truly hope that everyone would adhere to the notices and NOT proceed along the closed footpaths.

 

The mods have just gone above the call of duty in disabling the caches in the affected area, but as members of a law abiding society we all have our own individual parts to play too.

[+Learned Gerbil]

But the paths are not closed in the protected area - people can move around freely unless the path actually crosses a farm where there is a confirmed or suspected outbreak. This is a matter of some concern in the farming community.

 

There is no shortage of other caches, so to my mind, disabling seems a sensible signal that people should think about caching elsewhere for the time being.

[Nediam]

But the paths are not closed in the protected area - people can move around freely unless the path actually crosses a farm where there is a confirmed or suspected outbreak. This is a matter of some concern in the farming community.

 

There is no shortage of other caches, so to my mind, disabling seems a sensible signal that people should think about caching elsewhere for the time being.

 

Latest info from DEFRA:-

 

"However, footpaths and bridleways on infected premises are closed and the Chief Veterinary Officer has taken a decision to close the footpaths and bridleways in the first Protection Zone. This decision is based on the latest veterinary risk analysis and is in light of the number of cases in PZ 1 and the proximity to the main area under investigation. Also, a number of footpaths directly around infected holdings have also been closed to ensure that operations at the sites can continue. The situation will be kept under review."

[+careygang]

Why bother disabling?

While I have a lot of sympathy with your sentiments about the ever growing "Nanny State" mentality I would suggest that disabling caches only serves to emhasise the inadvisability of entering the restricted zone. Also it serves a helpful purpose is allowing cachers planning a trip to easily ignore those they can't presently get to.

 

You will notice they weren't archived, merely disabled.

 

I would also agree with your proposition that most if not all Geocachers are reasonable and sensible people so I have every confidence they will stay away.

 

Fair point. I guess it is a balancing act between being seen to 'do our bit' and a total over-reaction. I think you three deserve a lot of praise for the way you have handled this situation and all the other 'naff' you put up with.

[+Learned Gerbil]

So the footpaths have now been closed - a very recent change - they were still open yesterday lunchtime as the BBC had a camera team showing the paths. Our reviewers had the sense to anticipate the CVO's decision five days earlier!

[Nediam]

So the footpaths have now been closed - a very recent change - they were still open yesterday lunchtime as the BBC had a camera team showing the paths. Our reviewers had the sense to anticipate the CVO's decision five days earlier!

Yes it was a recent update done sometime overnight.

 

And in another update at midnight tonight, restrictions on cattle movement will be eased slightly with cattle outside the protection and surveillance zones allowed to be sent direct to slaughter under strict supervision and licencing. Also "fallen" (deceased) animals will be allowed to be removed.

 

Things are looking a bit more promising (fingers still crossed)

[+The Book Of Shadows]

Looks like things are starting to get back to normal:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6938039.stm

[+Lost in Space]

...I realise that I dared to "take a couple of days off" to help a 90 year old gentleman with some essential home maintenance...

 

Wasn't me........