Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
Deceangi

In responce to the Fire Tack Topic

Recommended Posts

As many will be aware the original topic regarding the use of Fire Tacks and reflectors nailed to Trees, had to be closed due to the way the discussion degenerated. However I've had someone pass over the Woodland Trusts stance on their usage.

 

Please note the following only applies to Woodland Trust owned Land.

 

Many thanks for your e-mail.

 

The Woodland Trust does not support or advocate the use of firetacks or pins being placed directly into trees for the following reasons:

 

1. Such practice can lead to direct damage to the tree – which can lead to two main points of concern:

 

• One of the main roles of tree bark is to protect the tree from infections such as bacterial or fungal attack – damage to the bark can lead to infections gaining access to the tree.

 

• Immediately under the bark is the system of “tubes” through which food and nutrients required by the tree flow – again these can be disrupted or damaged causing growth problems for the tree – this is especially true in younger trees where the bark tends to be thinning.

 

2. Nails, tacks and pins if left on a growing tree will eventually end up being “included” within the bark and sometimes stem of the tree. They are usually not visible from the outside when this ooccurs. Chainsaws used in the felling of trees are susceptible to damage and in the worse case scenario chainsaws can “kick back” towards the user when they hit metal/nails within the tree. This is potentially a real danger to forestry workers.

 

3. On the whole the attachment of plastic wallets or other items to trees directly tends to be both intrusive within a woodland setting and can lead to littering as the plastic or paper breaks down.

 

4. Where the fixing of message is part of the geocache then the use of gate or fence posts or other converted timber would be a more preferable location and we would advocate that all such geocaches are removed before they start to break down along with any fixing nails or pins.

 

5. The use of lightweight and natural string products such as jute or natural wood hung from low hanging accessible branches would seem to be a preferable alternative but again we would advocate that these should be removed.

 

Not sure if this helps but if you feel you want to talk this through further please just let me know.

 

All the best.

 

Deceangi

Share this post


Link to post

This may apply only to the woodland trust but I for one will adopt this for any cache I place

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post

The last time I asked a forestry expert (in preparation for getting permission for a night cache involving drawing pins in tree trunks) he said there was no problem and that they do it all the time (e.g. when placing temporary notices, marking bike courses etc.). Six-inch nails would be a different matter, but we're not suggesting using those.

 

The trees you commonly see with various items stuck in them (like the ones you see that act as a fence post, or the ones that sport signs saying "Keep Out") seem to be getting by OK, in my inexpert view.

 

Asking the Woodland Trust to declare that it's OK to stick metal into trees seem akin to asking the Salvation Army to declare that a couple of beers every night is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
The last time I asked a forestry expert (in preparation for getting permission for a night cache involving drawing pins in tree trunks) he said there was no problem and that they do it all the time (e.g. when placing temporary notices, marking bike courses etc.). Six-inch nails would be a different matter, but we're not suggesting using those.

 

The trees you commonly see with various items stuck in them (like the ones you see that act as a fence post, or the ones that sport signs saying "Keep Out") seem to be getting by OK, in my inexpert view.

 

Asking the Woodland Trust to declare that it's OK to stick metal into trees seem akin to asking the Salvation Army to declare that a couple of beers every night is fine.

I asked the same question to a tree surgeon only last week. The answer was as HH's.

Established trees are very resilient.

WireTree.JPG

 

Yes, it does come out the other side. :(

Share this post


Link to post

...Please note the following only applies to Woodland Trust owned Land. ...

 

We need to import some of that reasonableness across the Atlantic. Sometimes I think this country's roots as a penal colony show up in the strangest places.

 

As for the issue. Any one Fire Tack isn't a problem where the bark is thick enough. It's generations of them that add up. Rather like what happens to utility poles on street corners. Urban woods are different from a remote forest for 'use pressure'.

Share this post


Link to post

Established trees are very resilient.

WireTree.JPG

 

Yes, it does come out the other side. :(

I have a photo taken near a cache (if memory serves, GCWBXD Wild Garlic near Chorley) of a wire fence disappearing into one side of a very large tree and out the other. The outer surface of the tree is indented with lines, perfectly replicating the 4 inch-ish squares of the wire fence. The tree literally grew through the fence, absorbing it in the process. It seems to be doing just fine :ninja:

Share this post


Link to post

Pigdogs! I spend a couple of hours last night setting a new cache using fire tacks, get the page ready for submission and what do I see in the forums.... Firetacks are no longer PC!!! :ninja: Oh yeah, unless of course they are pushed into something that isn't wooden, be that alive or dead. Sheesh... :( I guess I'll spend a couple of hours tomorrow evening pulling all the little blighters back out and go retrieve the cache :ninja:

 

Will I need to Elastoplast the tree's? Anyone got any Savlon?

 

J

Edited by Dakar4x4

Share this post


Link to post

Crikey, the world's gone mad! Well England at least. :ninja: People have been nailing metal into trees for thousands of years. A few firetacks will make not one iota of difference to the tree - ask the Americans - I'm sure their forests are littered with shiny tacks - and does anyone mind (or care)?

 

And what about all those beetles boring little holes in our trees, and woodpeckers making even bigger ones, and caterpillars eating all of the leaves? And that village fete sign I saw on a 700 year old oak tree on the village green- I'm sure they used drawing pins. :ninja:

 

Our trees are doomed. :(

 

Fortunately, most of my night cache tacks are either in dead wood or plastic signs! Phew. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

What do the various woodland trust use to hang the bird boxes with?

No nails glue or ......

As daft as the Woodland Trusts response may or may not seem, they do own/manage the woodland so therefore we must respect there decision.

 

Now if someone were to negotiate with them, showing them that the firetacks are in actual fact no more onerous than say a drawing pin, then maybe they might just reconsider.

 

Another thing to consider might be that they don't want to encourage people onto their land at night shining torches all over the place, which may well be understandable, but if that were to be the case then they would have been better off stating that.

Share this post


Link to post

 

2. Nails, tacks and pins if left on a growing tree will eventually end up being “included” within the bark and sometimes stem of the tree. They are usually not visible from the outside when this ooccurs. Chainsaws used in the felling of trees are susceptible to damage and in the worse case scenario chainsaws can “kick back” towards the user when they hit metal/nails within the tree. This is potentially a real danger to forestry workers.

.

 

Deceangi

 

As the user of a chain saw I can support this view. I once hit a whole chain fom a chainsaw buried in the heart of a tree that had blown over... Caused the stated kick back, ruined my chain and probably caused the tree to blow over in the first place.... not sure if one of these tacks would have done that... indeed on second thoughts no, It whould have just been zapped.... not even noticed by the saw!!! I again state (from the previous log) if the land owner gives permission then it's their decision and right to grant informed permission (even when it does cause minor damage to their trees- their choise and permission)(Less danage than when they harvest them... LOL). This is what GC requires is it not,, with regards to permission when placing a cache...

Share this post


Link to post

I thought I would add my input as the cache owner for the two affected caches.

 

I have waited until now to put forward my opinion on the situation.

 

The dust now appears to be (kind of) settling and It is now clear that the use of Firetacks or other pins used as waymarkers is frowned upon by the forestry and woodland officials. We should all respect this judgement and follow the guidance offered by the officials with respect to land that we, the lucky cachers have access to.

 

What has stuck in my throat are the comments branding me and other Firetack users as tree hating environmental abusers. I would like to know what effect on caching will be as it has come to my attention that the cacher who flagged up the use of pins and consequently removed them, has contacted virtually every public landowner with regard to this matter.

 

It begs the question, is this just to prove a point or is it to promote healthy discussion of a pertinent subject.

The negative slant that appears to be put on the use of tacks can only cause harm to the wider caching community.

 

What next, is there going to be action taken because it is someones belief that caching is a licence to dispose of items in a box in the countryside, AKA littering...

 

When I started caching a short while ago, it was my belief that caching was a fun, light hearted sport for singles, couples and whole families. It would appear that I may have been mistaken.

 

I have acted (as far as I knew) in accordance with Groundspeak / Geocaching.com rules. It was never my intention to cause offence by marking a night time cache to spice up the caching in my local area. I was getting a little tired of the run of the mill film cases which are all too common. The trend with my caches is to be as innovative as possible whilst appealing to families. I like to include different containers and conduct my hides in slightly different ways. There are other cachers locally that also believe in innovating the hides which is greatly appreciated by all.

 

I am now considering whether or not to archive my caches as my faith in the caching community is waning.

 

Lastly, many thanks to those local cachers who have offered support and advice. Also thanks to Deceangi for remaining professional as ever when challenged with a testing situation.

 

Lets stop the personal attacks and remember, we are all reading this as we have a common interest.

 

For goodness sake, enjoy it!

 

Geohunter-X

Share this post


Link to post

The dust now appears to be (kind of) settling and It is now clear that the use of Firetacks or other pins used as waymarkers is frowned upon by the forestry and woodland officials. We should all respect this judgement and follow the guidance offered by the officials with respect to land that we, the lucky cachers have access to.

Not quite right: it looks like the Woodland Trust are alone in this view, and possibly they may be only using it as a ploy.

What has stuck in my throat are the comments branding me and other Firetack users as tree hating environmental abusers. I would like to know what effect on caching will be as it has come to my attention that the cacher who flagged up the use of pins and consequently removed them, has contacted virtually every public landowner with regard to this matter.

That's appalling behaviour. No wonder you're disappointed.

For goodness sake, enjoy it!

 

Geohunter-X

Good idea! :( Caching seems to be taken far too seriously by various parties. Perhaps it's becoming a victim of its own success.

Edited by Happy Humphrey

Share this post


Link to post

I picked up a box of fire tacks at the mega event but now i dont know if i will ever use them!!

 

I have had a thought on the matter .............

 

If i bore a 1" hole in all the trees then knock in a 1" dowel Atatch the fire pins to the "DEAD WOOD" that way I would be keeping everyone happy..........Wouldnt I ?? :(

Share this post


Link to post

Forwarded Email Reply from the FC's West Midlands Area which covers the counties of Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and the Local Authorities of Birmingham and the Black Country conurbation. Which funnily enough falls within our West Midlands Region

 

Dear [name removed]

 

Having sought the advice of a Woodland Officer, I can advise you that fire tacks or pins can cause damage to trees. Particularly to thin barked species and especially if the pins contain copper.

 

 

Regards

 

 

[name removed]

Administrative Officer

 

FC West Midlands Regional Office

Tel:

Fax:

 

For information on our Grants, Partnerships and the Public Forest Estate in the West Midlands visit our new regional website at www.forestry.gov.uk/westmidlands

 

If a Landowner is happy with the use of Fire Tacks, please provide that information in a Reviewer Note. Both the WT and FC are Proof of Permission before Publication Areas, the WT seems to be a definite No. However the FC West Midlands Area has not specifically banned the use of Fire Tacks, so please if your planning a Night Cache within their woods. Make contact and explain your Plans before setting the cache. The local Recreational Ranger might be happy to work with you to set up a night cache. The same goes for any Landowner, if your prepared to work with them, many will be prepared to work with you.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm...I'm still a little sceptical that a drawing pin or firetack will really cause severe damage to the likes of a Douglas Fir or Scots Pine with two-inch thick bark.

 

If this is the advice of the experts, perhaps we should alert the worldwide geocaching community and get a total ban. But there's not much point without also informing the hunting enthusiasts who regularly use these things (see this example). It may be time to stop the practice of forestry authorities attaching signs and notices to trees, and particularly things like lightning conductors, which use deeply-embedded screws with copper fittings.

Edited by Happy Humphrey

Share this post


Link to post

What do the various woodland trust use to hang the bird boxes with?

No nails glue or ......

 

I just purchased a birdbox (with a CCTV camera installed). The kit included 2 aluminium nails for attaching it to the tree. The instructions said to use alluminium nails rather than steel ones specifically for the risk of injury to future chainsaw users.

Share this post


Link to post

I just purchased a birdbox (with a CCTV camera installed). The kit included 2 aluminium nails for attaching it to the tree. The instructions said to use alluminium nails rather than steel ones specifically for the risk of injury to future chainsaw users.

Well, I hope you'll bin the whole thing now! We know that even the tiniest thumb tack will cause damage, so 2 nails will be a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe this will just encourage cachers to develop different kinds of night cache or alternative ways of placing reflectors. I've only seen one night cache that doesn't use a fire tack trail, this was done in a city as a mystery cache and you had to find different coloured lights at different locations.

Share this post


Link to post

Just another thought, in coniferous woodland the majority of the lower branches of trees are dead, firetacks could be attatched to the dead lower branches of conifers without harming them.

Share this post


Link to post

Despite our opinions regarding the use of FireTacks, it's the Land Owner's who the Reviewer have to apply.

 

Currently we have

 

The Woodland Trust who have stated that they will not allow the use of Fire Tacks

 

Forestry Commission West Midlands Area who have stated that Fire Tacks will damage thin skinned tree's, but have not officially banned the use of Fire Tacks.

 

In all other cache submissions using Fire Tacks we will work on a case by case basis. With all published caches using Fire Tacks or similar being Grandfathered In, subject to the Land Owner not requesting the removal of them

Share this post


Link to post

I for one was pleased that the woodland trust were engaging with us and not just saying 'stay off our land.' I was a tree surgeon and metal embedded in trees is very common and very costly. The cost of maintaining a chainsaw goes up and so do the costs to The Woodland Trust. Do we really want to make their jobs more difficult? They are there for the protection of the trees after all. They can't be sure that all those using firetacks will take the trouble to only place them in mature trees and check periodically that they aren't growing into the wood so what is their alternative - run a training course. What would folk have to say to that?

Share this post


Link to post

I for one was pleased that the woodland trust were engaging with us and not just saying 'stay off our land.' I was a tree surgeon and metal embedded in trees is very common and very costly. The cost of maintaining a chainsaw goes up and so do the costs to The Woodland Trust.

If I had a chainsaw that could be damaged by a firetack, I'd want my money back.

 

Lets keep this in perspective. Firetacks are smaller than a drawing pin.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't doubt for one minute that the Woodlands Trust know more about trees and all things leafy far more than me. However, I could not help noticing that my local County Council who also have parks responsibility have been tagging each individual tree. In Pentre Mawr park in Abergele, Eirias park in Colwyn Bay and Bodlondeb park, Conwy the tagging has been done with an individually numbered metal plate that is tapped with two tacks into the bark. Trees that have been tagged range from mature oaks (thick bark) through to small birch and elm.

 

Just an observation... I just hope our parks department have got it right and not the Woodlands Trust :) otherwise there will be lot of poorly trees in north Wales! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I for one was pleased that the woodland trust were engaging with us and not just saying 'stay off our land.' I was a tree surgeon and metal embedded in trees is very common and very costly. The cost of maintaining a chainsaw goes up and so do the costs to The Woodland Trust.

If I had a chainsaw that could be damaged by a firetack, I'd want my money back.

 

Lets keep this in perspective. Firetacks are smaller than a drawing pin.

I have many chainsaws that cost in excess of £700 quid. The chainsaw wouldn't be damaged at all but the chain would. Sharpening a chainsaw chain is a time consuming task. But please, if you have more experience as me with these tools feel free to challenge what I had to say rather than quoting me and then making a different point. Read my quote again and see that I never once suggested the saw would be damaged but highlighted the maintenance costs ie sharpening the chain. Though it seems disingenous of me to quote and then challenge someone with such encyclopaedic knowledge of arboriculture. And to keep anything in perspective as you suggested you would first have to know your arse from your elbow. But obviously I have a lot to learn from you. 20 years in arboriculture is such a meaningless start it seems.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't doubt for one minute that the Woodlands Trust know more about trees and all things leafy far more than me. However, I could not help noticing that my local County Council who also have parks responsibility have been tagging each individual tree. In Pentre Mawr park in Abergele, Eirias park in Colwyn Bay and Bodlondeb park, Conwy the tagging has been done with an individually numbered metal plate that is tapped with two tacks into the bark. Trees that have been tagged range from mature oaks (thick bark) through to small birch and elm.

 

Just an observation... I just hope our parks department have got it right and not the Woodlands Trust :) otherwise there will be lot of poorly trees in north Wales! :rolleyes:

Believe me, parks people make mistakes with their trees; look at how they stake them for a start and this is why many parks lose so many young trees hence the over planting to start with. On a mature tree, a tack will do little or no damage but as I pointed out; they need to be moved before being grown over. Then they are fine.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't doubt for one minute that the Woodlands Trust know more about trees and all things leafy far more than me. However, I could not help noticing that my local County Council who also have parks responsibility have been tagging each individual tree. In Pentre Mawr park in Abergele, Eirias park in Colwyn Bay and Bodlondeb park, Conwy the tagging has been done with an individually numbered metal plate that is tapped with two tacks into the bark. Trees that have been tagged range from mature oaks (thick bark) through to small birch and elm.

 

Just an observation... I just hope our parks department have got it right and not the Woodlands Trust :) otherwise there will be lot of poorly trees in north Wales! :rolleyes:

Believe me, parks people make mistakes with their trees; look at how they stake them for a start and this is why many parks lose so many young trees hence the over planting to start with. On a mature tree, a tack will do little or no damage but as I pointed out; they need to be moved before being grown over. Then they are fine.

 

Ahhh! Cool - thanks for the feedback. I'll get on their case.... being a council tax payer in the area of the said parks I want my investment of publicly funded trees to last! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I read with interest the logs on the forums and despite which side of the fence we fall towards, one thing we all have to bear in mind is that we are the lucky people that are reaping the rewards of good relations with private and public access landowners.

 

I guess i am appealing to all to now look to the future regarding the way that night caches are expected to be executed in the future. I personally do not have a problem with this.

 

What would you all prefer, no more caches in the woods or negotiated middle ground to maintain the healthy relationship with landowners?

 

Just bear in mind, everything posted here is for public viewing so think about how your post will come across when viewed by a landowner alerted to the potential problem that firetacks may or may not cause with respect to caching on their land both now and in the future.

 

We are risking putting lots of noses out of joint by careless words and the impact on caching could be irreversable.

 

I would like to take the opportunity to make a public apology to the landholders where my (now archived) caches were placed. I was unaware of the stance of landholders in general regarding the use of tacks in trees.

 

I currently have a very good relationship with the National Trust (who are not the landholders in question) and would like to continue developing the planned cache trail in one of Derbyshires most beautiful areas. I have currently got permission to place caches there and at another local site at their request.

 

I thank everyone for the lively discussion but would urge everyone to be productive with their posts.

 

It was obviously an area that needed discussion.

 

I will not be archiving all of my caches, so all who have emailed me on this matter, dont panic.

 

There will be more caches going out, hopefully in time for Halloween.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post

I for one was pleased that the woodland trust were engaging with us and not just saying 'stay off our land.' I was a tree surgeon and metal embedded in trees is very common and very costly. The cost of maintaining a chainsaw goes up and so do the costs to The Woodland Trust.

If I had a chainsaw that could be damaged by a firetack, I'd want my money back.

 

Lets keep this in perspective. Firetacks are smaller than a drawing pin.

I have many chainsaws that cost in excess of £700 quid. The chainsaw wouldn't be damaged at all but the chain would. Sharpening a chainsaw chain is a time consuming task. But please, if you have more experience as me with these tools feel free to challenge what I had to say rather than quoting me and then making a different point. Read my quote again and see that I never once suggested the saw would be damaged but highlighted the maintenance costs ie sharpening the chain. Though it seems disingenous of me to quote and then challenge someone with such encyclopaedic knowledge of arboriculture. And to keep anything in perspective as you suggested you would first have to know your arse from your elbow. But obviously I have a lot to learn from you. 20 years in arboriculture is such a meaningless start it seems.

I bow to your obvious superior knowledge.

 

You are of course quite correct. I don't know my arse from my elbow when it comes to arboiculture but I do know about mathematics and probability.

 

How many firetacks do you think geocachers would place in trees in a year and how many of those would be ultimately hit by chainsaws? Odds suggest not many. How many firetacks would you have to hit with a saw before you would need to sharpen the chain? Total cost to the Woodlands Trust in a year? Not much. I'll send them a fiver just in case. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

The ability of geocachers to paint themselves into a corner never ceases to amaze me.

 

At the risk of sounding blunt: Drop it, here and now. If we all keep thrashing out the rights and wrongs of fire tacks and night caches ad nauseum, there will end up being a series of unnecessary and probably draconian rules that the reviewers will have no choice but to implement.

 

As it is (and has always been) there is one simple sentence in the publication guidelines which precisely and entirely covers the issue of fire tacks: get permission!

 

There are several reasons why geocaching is becoming more and more rule bound lately. The first is the obvious increase in the activity's visiblilty to public authorities and the second is these silly and eternal debates on the forums about specifics that are clearly already covered by the guidelines. Enough already!!

Edited by JeremyR

Share this post


Link to post

The ability of geocachers to paint themselves into a corner never ceases to amaze me.

 

At the risk of sounding blunt: Drop it, here and now. If we all keep thrashing out the rights and wrongs of fire tacks and night caches ad nauseum, there will end up being a series of unnecessary and probably draconian rules that the reviewers will have no choice but to implement.

 

As it is (and has always been) there is one simple sentence in the publication guidelines which precisely and entirely covers the issue of fire tacks: get permission!

 

There are several reasons why geocaching is becoming more and more rule bound lately. The first is the obvious increase in the activity's visiblilty to public authorities and the second is these silly and eternal debates on the forums about specifics that are clearly already covered by the guidelines. Enough already!!

 

Well said. I'll second that! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I should never had used the phrase 'arse from your elbow' so apologies to more gentle forum readers and moderators. I vow never to mention elbows again.

And should anyone require a tree climber to position a 5 rated cache 60' up in the branches, ask someone younger than me. I'm trying to retire.

Share this post


Link to post

I should never had used the phrase 'arse from your elbow' so apologies to more gentle forum readers and moderators. I vow never to mention elbows again.

And should anyone require a tree climber to position a 5 rated cache 60' up in the branches, ask someone younger than me. I'm trying to retire.

Apology accepted.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry came late to the conversation but a thought occurs.... has anyone asked what damage a small drop of epoxy resin would do? then stick you firetacks etc onto the tree using the resin not a nail.

 

no break in the surface to allow in infection.

Share this post


Link to post

Will epoxy resin remain attached, as the bark expands? Of course some will say the glue will suffocate the tree :unsure:

 

I think it has been argued that the little tacks will not do any long term damage to the tree, but it could be argued that placing one little tack will open the floodgates, since somebody else will come along and use thumb tacks to put up a notice, then the next person might use nails, and in not time at all, the tree is full of iron/copper etc! Just have a look at some of the telegraph poles where planning notices etc are put - there are usually loads of old tacks which have been left in after the notice has been removed.

 

Ivan

Share this post


Link to post
As daft as the Woodland Trusts response may or may not seem, they do own/manage the woodland so therefore we must respect there decision.

 

I prefer to respect decisions based on facts.

 

I recently started a new job and found out that my employer has been forking out £2000 a year for PAT testing. We now do it ourselves and that two grand goes into the bonus pot.

 

So called experts told them that PAT testing had to be carried out by a qualified electrician, it don't...

Share this post


Link to post
As daft as the Woodland Trusts response may or may not seem, they do own/manage the woodland so therefore we must respect there decision.

 

I prefer to respect decisions based on facts.

 

I recently started a new job and found out that my employer has been forking out £2000 a year for PAT testing. We now do it ourselves and that two grand goes into the bonus pot.

 

So called experts told them that PAT testing had to be carried out by a qualified electrician, it don't...

 

But it does all depend on what equipment is being 'tested', where it is located and the competency of the staff involved.

 

Much as there are some people employed in some companies who are nowhere near competent to test electrical items, there are cachers who are not capable of using Fire Tacks or other sharp items correctly.

Much as many monkeys will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare on a typewriter, you will undoubtedly eventually get a cacher put a tack in a young sapling.

 

We should all heed post #32 ! ;)

Share this post


Link to post

<big snip>

Much as many monkeys will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare on a typewriter

Thanks to the Internet we now know that this is not the case! ;)

 

I'm sure someone here uses that as a sig.

Share this post


Link to post

The ability of geocachers to paint themselves into a corner never ceases to amaze me.

 

At the risk of sounding blunt: Drop it, here and now. If we all keep thrashing out the rights and wrongs of fire tacks and night caches ad nauseum, there will end up being a series of unnecessary and probably draconian rules that the reviewers will have no choice but to implement.

 

As it is (and has always been) there is one simple sentence in the publication guidelines which precisely and entirely covers the issue of fire tacks: get permission!

 

There are several reasons why geocaching is becoming more and more rule bound lately. The first is the obvious increase in the activity's visiblilty to public authorities and the second is these silly and eternal debates on the forums about specifics that are clearly already covered by the guidelines. Enough already!!

I can see what you're getting at...but you're ignoring the fact that it was the permission request that did the painting into a corner.

 

I don't wish to criticise well-meant efforts to make caching officially sanctioned. But, had no-one put the Woodland Trust into a tight spot by specifically asking them to support the use of fire tacks, we wouldn't have had their inevitable sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut response and subsequent incredulous postings.

Share this post


Link to post

The ability of geocachers to paint themselves into a corner never ceases to amaze me.

 

At the risk of sounding blunt: Drop it, here and now. If we all keep thrashing out the rights and wrongs of fire tacks and night caches ad nauseum, there will end up being a series of unnecessary and probably draconian rules that the reviewers will have no choice but to implement.

 

As it is (and has always been) there is one simple sentence in the publication guidelines which precisely and entirely covers the issue of fire tacks: get permission!

 

There are several reasons why geocaching is becoming more and more rule bound lately. The first is the obvious increase in the activity's visiblilty to public authorities and the second is these silly and eternal debates on the forums about specifics that are clearly already covered by the guidelines. Enough already!!

I can see what you're getting at...but you're ignoring the fact that it was the permission request that did the painting into a corner.

 

I don't wish to criticise well-meant efforts to make caching officially sanctioned. But, had no-one put the Woodland Trust into a tight spot by specifically asking them to support the use of fire tacks, we wouldn't have had their inevitable sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut response and subsequent incredulous postings.

 

I think the question was asked about firetacks not by the owner but someone else who had done or gone to do the cache and had a issue with it, they then took it upon themselves to contact the various organisations.

 

If that was the case then surely it is better to stop the bickering and move forward by dealing with these organisations and explain the situation properly.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the question was asked about firetacks not by the owner but someone else who had done or gone to do the cache and had a issue with it, they then took it upon themselves to contact the various organisations.

 

If that was the case then surely it is better to stop the bickering and move forward by dealing with these organisations and explain the situation properly.

I'm not sure where the bickering is, but if that's going on then it's definitely not going to help.

 

I think that we've established only that there are varying opinions about whether these things do any harm. But it does seem necessary to explain exactly what is in use so that we can be sure that the land manager's decision is based on fact rather than assumption.

Share this post


Link to post

How about these instead of tacks?

 

Cheers,

 

Jon.

I suspect that they'll show up too much in daylight, which is OK but not so good if you want it to be a spooky night-only trail, and may be subject to vandalism. The ones I used are black reflectors with a black background. Others that I've seen are orange discs, but far apart and screwed in to the trees on a black metal bracket, so pretty secure (I should point out that these are outside the UK so are perfectly acceptable).

Share this post


Link to post

How about these instead of tacks?

 

Cheers,

 

Jon.

I suspect that they'll show up too much in daylight, which is OK but not so good if you want it to be a spooky night-only trail, and may be subject to vandalism. The ones I used are black reflectors with a black background. Others that I've seen are orange discs, but far apart and screwed in to the trees on a black metal bracket, so pretty secure (I should point out that these are outside the UK so are perfectly acceptable).

I know evolution's a pretty powerful machine, but screw-proof trees on the continent and not on our likkle island is absolutely amazing. :D

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

×
×
  • Create New...