In responce to the Fire Tack Topic

[CatwomanLinda]

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 am writing an article about this subject having done some research on it. I would agree with your statement about the Salvation Army parallel. I have talked to a number of professors and forestry experts about this already, and while nails in trees, or girdling from animals certainoly can kill trees, the placement of a tack marker, I am told so far, does not. In fact, much research is done worldwide using such trail markers to study nocturnal animal behavior and such, because they do not cause damage. I will note a link to the article when it is compete, most like early fall 2009.

 

CWL

[+Von-Horst]

Surely if one of these is acceptable;

 

 

Then so is a Fire Tack?

 

Mike

[+keehotee]

Why do people keep paying through the nose for fire tacks?

I've put out 4 night caches so far, and have never used a fire tack.

 

Get yourselves down to your nearest surplus shop - or better still find a building site that's almost completed - and pick up a hi-viz waistcoat.

Peel off the 3M reflective tape, then either cut it into whatever shapes you want, or into ribbons, and use that instead.

It's far more effective than tacks, it's next to invisible during the day, and it's a fraction of the cost....

[+Von-Horst]

Ooops.

 

 

I've committed thread necrophilia.....

 

Ooops.

 

 

Mike

[CatwomanLinda]

Hello,

 

I was made aware of this discussion by a college professor friend of mine. What he, and what I would be curious to know is, where out there is any scientific proof, or study, or evidence or validation, that a tiny trail marker with a tiny pin causes damage? I see where "experts" site this damage or that damage, like Woodland Trust making statements - but what is the veracity of the statements? Where are the references to studies proving the statements? Statements that cannot be quantified empirically or scientifically, are opinions and not fact. Those opinions might be more aesthetic than scientific, and that's okay. But, drawing parallels between nails, and the tiny pins of a thumb tack is a big jump. While I respect those who are experts in their fields, when information is cited as fact, and I cannot find supporting proof or scientific study or information from those who are equally or more expert than those making the statements, my curious mind wants to know. The truth is the truth regardless - but this issue is not religion where what you feel in your heart and what you have between yourself and God in your own truth. The truth and proof of tree damage from a small trailer marker should be out there somewhere, yet it can't be found. If it's out there... please direct me to it.

 

thank you.

[+dino-irl]

[+Happy Humphrey]

Statements that cannot be quantified empirically or scientifically, are opinions and not fact.

You're quite right, and the reviewers don't seem to be able to come up with a factual basis for this.

 

The damage caused seems to be a uniquely British problem, so the research will have to be relevant to British trees and not the more robust ones everywhere else.

 

As you clearly have a vested interest, perhaps you could contact the Woodland Trust and ask them for a pointer to the relevant research? It would certainly be interesting to hear the reply.

As they insist that this is such a serious problem, I'm sure they'll have lots of references to back up their assertions and you may be able to devise a pin that is tree-friendly, for the UK market.

[Deceangi]

Statements that cannot be quantified empirically or scientifically, are opinions and not fact.

You're quite right, and the reviewers don't seem to be able to come up with a factual basis for this.

 

The damage caused seems to be a uniquely British problem, so the research will have to be relevant to British trees and not the more robust ones everywhere else.

 

As you clearly have a vested interest, perhaps you could contact the Woodland Trust and ask them for a pointer to the relevant research? It would certainly be interesting to hear the reply.

As they insist that this is such a serious problem, I'm sure they'll have lots of references to back up their assertions and you may be able to devise a pin that is tree-friendly, for the UK market.

 

My Bold in the quote. The Reviewers do not have to come up with a factual basis for this. All we have to do is apply the Landowners requirements in regards to their property.

 

Please stop trying to put the blame on to the UK Reviewers!

 

This is a factual Statement !A UK Cacher who is not a Reviewer, contacted the Woodland Trust and made a inquiry about the usage of Fire Tacks. The Woodland Trust came back with a decision that they will not allow the usage of them.

 

As the Woodland Trust as the Landowner have made their position very clear. We have no choice but to enforce that position. As to what we think or don't think, does not come in to it at any time.

 

So please withdraw

You're quite right, and the reviewers don't seem to be able to come up with a factual basis for this.

 

Or provide clear proof of why we have to provide Factual Statements about the usage of Fire Tacks. Especially as we are not the Landowners, and still do publish caches using Fire Tacks on Land owned by a Landowner who has not banned their usage!

 

Deci

[+Happy Humphrey]

My Bold in the quote. The Reviewers do not have to come up with a factual basis for this. All we have to do is apply the Landowners requirements in regards to their property.

 

Please stop trying to put the blame on to the UK Reviewers!

 

I'm not trying to say that the reviewers should be experts on such matters, but obviously if the Woodland Trust have a requirement based on inaccurate facts and misunderstandings, then it's up to the reviewers to check and clarify this with them. I'd be very disappointed if any reviewer merely accedes to any demand from a land management body without question, unless the reason behind the requirement is clear and reasonable and not based on a misunderstanding. On this occasion, if I was a reviewer, I would have at least pointed out to the WT that we are talking about firetacks (not nails, as they mention), and asked for an example of a research document to give details about what appears to be a very surprising claim. Otherwise I'd expect awkward questions from geocachers which I can't answer.

 

As an example, if a landowner said that he doesn't want geocaches on his land because they cause disease; I'd expect the reviewer to query that with him rather than simply passing that on. He might have thought that caches contain food items and be quite amenable when put right on that.

 

I certainly don't expect you to go leafing through all the research on tree damage; you do more than enough for us and I thank you for that. But a reference would have done.

 

As I said above, it's up to Linda now (as she has a commercial interest) to check the Woodland Trust's sources for the actual research material, and it will be interesting to see what is put forward.

[norsch]

My Bold in the quote. The Reviewers do not have to come up with a factual basis for this. All we have to do is apply the Landowners requirements in regards to their property.

 

Please stop trying to put the blame on to the UK Reviewers!

 

I'm not trying to say that the reviewers should be experts on such matters, but obviously if the Woodland Trust have a requirement based on inaccurate facts and misunderstandings, then it's up to the reviewers to check and clarify this with them. I'd be very disappointed if any reviewer merely accedes to any demand from a land management body without question, unless the reason behind the requirement is clear and reasonable and not based on a misunderstanding. On this occasion, if I was a reviewer, I would have at least pointed out to the WT that we are talking about firetacks (not nails, as they mention), and asked for an example of a research document to give details about what appears to be a very surprising claim. Otherwise I'd expect awkward questions from geocachers which I can't answer.

 

As an example, if a landowner said that he doesn't want geocaches on his land because they cause disease; I'd expect the reviewer to query that with him rather than simply passing that on. He might have thought that caches contain food items and be quite amenable when put right on that.

 

I certainly don't expect you to go leafing through all the research on tree damage; you do more than enough for us and I thank you for that. But a reference would have done.

 

As I said above, it's up to Linda now (as she has a commercial interest) to check the Woodland Trust's sources for the actual research material, and it will be interesting to see what is put forward.

I personally can't see why you expect a reviewer to argue with a landowner about the landowners rules, whether, in your eyes the landowner is right or wrong.

The landowner is entitled to lay down any rule they like, no matter how ill informed they are.

We are lucky to be able to cache on this land, and should not antagonise the landowner into withdrawing permission.

If I were to allow a cache to be placed on my land, I would expect my rules to be adhered to, no matter how unreasonable they were.

[+Happy Humphrey]

The landowner is entitled to lay down any rule they like, no matter how ill informed they are.

We are lucky to be able to cache on this land, and should not antagonise the landowner into withdrawing permission.

If I were to allow a cache to be placed on my land, I would expect my rules to be adhered to, no matter how unreasonable they were.

Perhaps we should leave it here as this might get too heated. All I'm saying is that if the landowner seems to have misunderstood the nature of the request, then it should be clarified. So if the Woodland Trust think we're asking to bang nails into trees and hang items from them, then surely the reviewer has to clarify this with them. Otherwise their decision is based on misunderstanding, and doesn't do anyone any good.

 

Of course landowners can make up bizarre rules for the patch of land they work, if they want. And it's probably best in most cases to comply with such wishes (as long as we are convinced that the matter has been clarified).

But if we, the public, find out that a particular unreasonable rule has no legal basis, then we could choose to ignore it. Just because someone has rights to the land doesn't mean that they can make up their own laws. Landowners are lucky that we allow them to make a living out of the land with minimal interference from the public, and really we should expect in return that a certain amount of public use should be granted wherever it doesn't impact on their ability to work the land.

[+dino-irl]

It's not up to the reviewer, it's up to the person who negotiated the landowner agreement or, if they're no longer active, whoever is prepared to take over responsibility. In some cases this person may be the reviewer but in this case I don't believe it is?

[Deceangi]

From my understanding of the communication between the Geocacher who contacted them and the Woodland Trust's reply. They were aware of the nature of Fire Tacks. and stated that the pin actually pierces the bark on thin barked species, entering the living part of the Tree. And for various reason related to this, that is why they applied the ban.

 

Given that the email address shown in CatwomanLinda profile appears to be pointing to her working for or owning firetack.com. She would be the best person to discuss with the WT about their issues with fire tacks. And maybe produce a alternative acceptable to the Woodlands Trust product.

 

If I had initially visited her profile before replying to this resurrected topic, I'd have walked away. As it appears she has only Bumpasaurus'd this topic for self commercial interests.

 

And I intend contacting her directly to request she does so!

 

Deci

[CatwomanLinda]

Why do people keep paying through the nose for fire tacks?

I've put out 4 night caches so far, and have never used a fire tack.

 

Get yourselves down to your nearest surplus shop - or better still find a building site that's almost completed - and pick up a hi-viz waistcoat.

Peel off the 3M reflective tape, then either cut it into whatever shapes you want, or into ribbons, and use that instead.

It's far more effective than tacks, it's next to invisible during the day, and it's a fraction of the cost....

 

FireTacks are re-usable and last over ten years if left out year round... sticky back scrap from dumpsters is not re-usable, and would require multiple visits to scavange for more scrap. Using a commerical marker does not require dumpster diving from construction work zones where, perish the thought, you might step on a nail, get arrested for tresspassing, contract some chemical or bacteria induced illness from waste products, or worse.

[+keehotee]

Why do people keep paying through the nose for fire tacks?

I've put out 4 night caches so far, and have never used a fire tack.

 

Get yourselves down to your nearest surplus shop - or better still find a building site that's almost completed - and pick up a hi-viz waistcoat.

Peel off the 3M reflective tape, then either cut it into whatever shapes you want, or into ribbons, and use that instead.

It's far more effective than tacks, it's next to invisible during the day, and it's a fraction of the cost....

 

FireTacks are re-usable and last over ten years if left out year round... sticky back scrap from dumpsters is not re-usable, and would require multiple visits to scavange for more scrap. Using a commerical marker does not require dumpster diving from construction work zones where, perish the thought, you might step on a nail, get arrested for tresspassing, contract some chemical or bacteria induced illness from waste products, or worse.

 

1. 3M tape's pretty reusable - and my earliest markers are approaching 5 years old now with no degradation.

2. Can't see any references to dumpsters or trespassing apart from yours....is there something you're not telling us?

3. 3M tape isn't sticky-backed AFAIK. I've tied it on in areas where staples or tacks would be harmful, and used a stapler or adhesive in other areas.

 

Why not let people make their own minds up

[+*mouse*]

Why not let people make their own minds up

 

'Cause CatwomanLinda has a product to plug.......

 

Another advantage of 3M hi-viz is that it can be cut into shapes appropriate to the cache. So if you want a spooky set of eyes staring back at you, or an arrow pointing the way it's perfect.

 

Firetacks have their place - but if landowners have issues with nails, pins or even the colour of the sky (and why shouldn't they - it's their land after all) then keehotee is right to point out an alternative solution that keeps everyone happy.

Edited May 14, 2010 by *mouse*

[+Ant89]

Just to

another alternative product

 

Reflective spray paint

 

Although remembering which trees are marked whilst doing maintinance may be a little tricky

Edited May 14, 2010 by Ant89

[+Jonovich]

Just to

another alternative product

 

Reflective spray paint

 

Holy cow! 40 quid a tin?

 

J

[+Ant89]

Just to

another alternative product

 

Reflective spray paint

 

Holy cow! 40 quid a tin?

 

J

 

I know! shocking! (btw I just wanted to use a photo of a plug in a thread that's the only reason I posted that ) (Yes, I am Odd, Deci will confirm that )

[Deceangi]

Time to reveal a few facts In this post CatwomanLinda states

I was made aware of this discussion by a college professor friend of mine.

 

But 12 months ago in the same topic In this Post she states

 

I am writing an article about this subject having done some research on it.

 

So the second post is contradicted by the first post!

 

Also the email address in her profile lburch at firetacks .com would indicate that she is Linda Kistler Burch President, WildTech Corporation

 

Which manufactures Fire Tacks.

 

Linda I'm making a complaint directly to Groundspeak about your activities in this forum. As your actively promoting your own company's products in this forum. And at the same time hidding your agenda and identity as the President of the company manufacturing the Product your promoting.

 

Deceangi

[+Munkeh]

Time to reveal a few facts In this post CatwomanLinda states

I was made aware of this discussion by a college professor friend of mine.

 

But 12 months ago in the same topic In this Post she states

 

I am writing an article about this subject having done some research on it.

 

So the second post is contradicted by the first post!

 

Also the email address in her profile lburch at firetacks .com would indicate that she is Linda Kistler Burch President, WildTech Corporation

 

Which manufactures Fire Tacks.

 

Linda I'm making a complaint directly to Groundspeak about your activities in this forum. As your actively promoting your own company's products in this forum. And at the same time hidding your agenda and identity as the President of the company manufacturing the Product your promoting.

 

Deceangi

 

I thought it stange this was dug up after such a long time

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

...and dear ol' Linda hasn't even found any caches!

[+Happy Humphrey]

I realised who she was straight away, hence the reference to "vested interests" and my advice to contact the WT direct and let us know their references.

 

I don't see any problem with her posting on here as long as it's to correct factual inaccuracies or use her experience of the product to help clarify the discussion. She was careful to avoid directly promoting the company (some here have only just realised who it is!), and hasn't hidden her identity.

 

If someone claimed that a certain type of GPSr is no good, based on misunderstanding the spec, would we prevent someone from the company posting on here to set the facts straight? What if they were already an active geocacher?

[+Munkeh]

I realised who she was straight away, hence the reference to "vested interests" and my advice to contact the WT direct and let us know their references.

 

I don't see any problem with her posting on here as long as it's to correct factual inaccuracies or use her experience of the product to help clarify the discussion. She was careful to avoid directly promoting the company (some here have only just realised who it is!), and hasn't hidden her identity.

 

If someone claimed that a certain type of GPSr is no good, based on misunderstanding the spec, would we prevent someone from the company posting on here to set the facts straight? What if they were already an active geocacher?

 

so you wouldn't mind me promoting products here without declaring that I might make some gain out of it - its a slippery slope you start with one person doing it where does it then stop. you end up with half the threads interjected with product advertising. You should notice if someone asks where to get a product neither me or Mongoose will get involved in the thread if its to do with a product that we sell as that would be having a personal agenda.

[+MartyBartfast]

... you might step on a nail, get arrested for tresspassing, contract some chemical or bacteria induced illness from waste products, or worse.

 

Well that (and worse) is all in a normal days caching for many of us.

 

TBH though I don't think CWL overstepped the mark, I looked at her profile after her first post and it was pretty clear she's connected to the company but I dont think she was unreasonably pushing the product.

[+Happy Humphrey]

so you wouldn't mind me promoting products here without declaring that I might make some gain out of it

Yes, I would mind that. But that's not what Linda did. If someone posted erroneous information about something that you sell, I don't see why you shouldn't get the opportunity to correct this - admittedly you should also mention your interest though.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

so you wouldn't mind me promoting products here without declaring that I might make some gain out of it

Yes, I would mind that. But that's not what Linda did. If someone posted erroneous information about something that you sell, I don't see why you shouldn't get the opportunity to correct this - admittedly you should also mention your interest though.

 

ITA with HH.

 

Imagine you are a maker of Fine Rare Widgets, and FRW are very rare in the UK, in fact only you and a select few shops with no internet presence make FRWs. I'd further stipulate that if you frequented an online forum and someone was enquiring as to where they may get their hands on some FRWs, it would be courtesy to mention you have a shop that sells them.

 

It's not always about advertising by stealth - some merchants are actually doing a valuable service!

[CatwomanLinda]

Time to reveal a few facts In this post CatwomanLinda states

I was made aware of this discussion by a college professor friend of mine.

 

But 12 months ago in the same topic In this Post she states

 

I am writing an article about this subject having done some research on it.

 

So the second post is contradicted by the first post!

 

Also the email address in her profile lburch at firetacks .com would indicate that she is Linda Kistler Burch President, WildTech Corporation

 

Which manufactures Fire Tacks.

 

Linda I'm making a complaint directly to Groundspeak about your activities in this forum. As your actively promoting your own company's products in this forum. And at the same time hidding your agenda and identity as the President of the company manufacturing the Product your promoting.

 

Deceangi

 

===============

 

Hi again,

 

I honestly am not trying to promote. People can choose what they want for nighttime navigation - that is the American way! I have many venues where I do promote, and this is not one of them. But anyway... I would like to respond to the supposed contradiction noted above.

Part of the R&D I did 15 years ago in developing products, was to discuss safety, forestry and ethical issues with those trained in such matters, as I/we developed a business plan, etc. I was blessed to have a couple of experts, scientists and a college professor, yes, who took me under their wing back then, to advise in the business start up.

Since then, I often have fellow business people, professionals in my insdustry, etc., email or call me with a heads up if they think there is something out there that isn't quite correct. I do the same if I see questionable info with their products, patents, trademarks or copyrights. We all watch each other's backs. That is what led me to the posts here in the first place... last summer. When I saw the Northern Trust comments... I naturally first felt defensive for obvious reasons.... I thought I had R&D'd that issue beyond reproach. I then thought... if true, I'd be a fool to refute things that are factual and I'd best face the facts and/or redesign, etc. etc.

I did write the article I referenced. Research takes time and finding experts takes time. It has just started posting in various places this month.

Besides tree damage issues, friends have alterted me to patent, trademark and copyright infringement, or when copyrighted articles I write are pirated for whatever profit use that might not be by my permission or kosher, etc.

I apologise to all here if I seemed to be promoting. I would like to freedom, if possible, to post here sometimes though... without seeming like I'm up to something. I first found out about Groundspeak and these bulletin boards, from people posting here many years ago, and was as I said, directed here by a friend who was concerned, last summer.

Lastly, I am a landowner myslef, and whoever owns the land calls the shots, bottom line.

 

Linda

Edited June 2, 2010 by CatwomanLinda

[+Happy Humphrey]

It seemed useful input to me, and I'm sorry that some got so offended by your attempts to put the facts forward.

 

Lastly, I am a landowner myslef, and whoever owns the land calls the shots, bottom line.

That's fine as long as the landowner is aware of the facts, has an accurate view of what geocaching entails and gives his/her valid reasons for refusal (which might be that it looks like it might cause them trouble and they can't be bothered with it).

 

As far as "calling the shots", in the UK the landowner does not lay down the law, and in general (I'm not talking about geocache placing here, and there are some exceptions) if people are going about their lawful business then the landowner has no powers to interrupt them. There's no concept of "trespass" being a crime as in the US; as long as you don't cause any damage or invade privacy you can more or less go where you want and at most can be politely asked to leave.*

 

But back to firetacks. We have had a series of cache bans of various types recently and the landowner often puts forward spurious and baffling reasons why geocaching should not be allowed. To me these come across as excuses, but in some cases their claims are taken on board as fact and not checked; so we end up with bans supposedly because we are "littering" or "burying", or as in this case "destroying trees". In my view, we can accept caching being banned but if the reason given is based on inaccurate facts then we have a duty to investigate and correct. Even if we still end up with a ban, it'd be better if based on genuine reasoning rather than dubious claims and unchecked "facts". So that's why your opinion on the use of firetacks should have been taken more seriously.

No doubt the Woodland Trust means well, but as they appear reluctant to offer references for their claims that firetacks cause serious damage it's up to us to verify that they haven't misunderstood the question. They may be getting firetacks mixed up with nails, for instance, or perhaps have never actually studied a firetack. I would have expected a clarification question to have been asked, to make sure we're talking about the same thing, and to check what references the WT give when offering advice which seems to contradict the advice of other experts.

 

*just to clarify; according to the Ramblers Association:

In most cases, trespass is a civil rather than a criminal matter. A landowner may use “reasonable force” to compel a trespasser to leave, but not more than is reasonably necessary. Unless injury to the property can be proven, a landowner could probably only recover nominal damages by suing for trespass. But of course you might have to meet the landowner’s legal costs. Thus a notice saying “Trespassers will be Prosecuted”, aimed for instance at keeping you off a private drive, is usually meaningless. Criminal prosecution could only arise if you trespass and damage property. However, under public order law, trespassing with an intention to reside may be a criminal offence under some circumstances. It is also a criminal offence to trespass on railway land and sometimes on military training land.

...so although you could get in trouble, effectively you can go where you like as long as you move off when asked. In the U.S. it's regarded a bit more seriously (in my experience).

Edited June 4, 2010 by Happy Humphrey

[+G-X]

As a follow up to the original caches that sparked this whole debate.

I recently revisited the area where one of the night caches was placed as part of a new series placed by another cacher. I am pleased to report that all of the trees in question are alive and well sporting their thick summer leaves.

 

I did find a way round the firetack usage which was to attach them to crocodile clips and to simply clip them to the trees. Sadly, night caches do not seem to be as popular as the standard drive-by cache these days and visitor numbers are low. However, the logs left by the few finders have been encouraging.

 

There is no doubt that firetacks and the reflective material used on them is very resilient to weather conditions and the sun (not that we get much in the UK).

 

The advantage that I have found in using the tacks is that they are visible from multiple angles due to their shape.

 

BTW, no, I am not advertising!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Sadly, night caches do not seem to be as popular as the standard drive-by cache these days and visitor numbers are low. However, the logs left by the few finders have been encouraging.

Don't worry about that; it's just a feature of the game that more time-consuming caches tend to be found less often. Frequency of logs isn't important. Quality of experience is.

[+G-X]

 

Don't worry about that; it's just a feature of the game that more time-consuming caches tend to be found less often. Frequency of logs isn't important. Quality of experience is.

 

Couldn't agree more Happy Humphrey. Happy caching!

[+104daysummervacation]

 

Hi Guys!

I know this is slightly off topic and maybe more light hearted than some posts.

 

Last week was school half term.

We had 11 teenage girls camping in our backgarden and I constructed a night time "geocache" trail.

 

Halfords reflective tape £3.99 for 150 cm,cut into 1cm squares,two hles punched with hole punch,oldfashioned string through holes and tied round trees/posts etc.

The goodie boxes (large) were put into Ikea dogpoo bags(black) with a 1*1 cm reflective piece of tape on.The ADSA glowsticks for £1.50 were very well recieved (and made it easier to see where all the girls were!)

 

Every marker and box were collected by yours truly walking at the end of the group.

3 cows who had been asleep must have thought we were aliens but soon went back to sleep.

A great time was had by all and no trees were harmed.

 

Do you think a temporary thing like this might be an idea for a Haloween event cache?

 

If so ,I migth just do it( and hopefully not walking the trail twice with a recently broken toe like last week)

(No vested interest in above tradenames)

[+PopUpPirate]

Sounds a great idea - very resourceful/effective and not too expensive. Would replicate well for an event, maybe swap the DP bags for something that wouldn't be confused for "the real thing" in the wild though

[+smstext]

i did a night cache up at the wales event this year, after speaking to the cache owner he pointed me to fleabay to what he used which was "reflective black tape, reflects white" which in the daytime just looks like black label held to tree with a bit of green tie. but at night when you are shining lights on them they glow white and are easy to spot. not done any fire tack trails yet, but has given me a good start for what i would use on a night cache trail when im ready to put one out.

[+PopUpPirate]

Seen these used, and they worked very well: