Cache Disallowed after loads of effort to set it up !

[+Cache U Nutter]

O.K this one had been planned for over a year. It involved a micro 70ft up a tree in the middle of a lake on an island. It would have been a 5/5 'extreme' cache.

Unfortunately [and unknown to myself] the lake had been established as a nature reserve and not only that but there is an old bylaw banning tree climbing in the park !

The Council representative [and nature warden] from whom I sought permission [retrospectively] is also a local cacher and maybe pleased that it was not another DNA [did not attempt] cache in this area littered with really high grade caches.

I did however enjoy the climb and ice skate to place the cache !!

So what did you do before your plans were thwarted ?

[Chudley Cannons]

I had one under a railway sleeper in a tunnel on the west coast line. Refused.

[ginger_4x4]

O.K this one had been planned for over a year. It involved a micro 70ft up a tree in the middle of a lake on an island. It would have been a 5/5 'extreme' cache.

Unfortunately [and unknown to myself] the lake had been established as a nature reserve and not only that but there is an old bylaw banning tree climbing in the park !

The Council representative [and nature warden] from whom I sought permission [retrospectively] is also a local cacher and maybe pleased that it was not another DNA [did not attempt] cache in this area littered with really high grade caches.

I did however enjoy the climb and ice skate to place the cache !!

So what did you do before your plans were thwarted ?

 

CUN, I can only sympathise and would have looked forward in doing the cache ......however it is frustrating that (in some cases) a great deal of effort, time and sometimes expense can be knocked back by those who sit by a computer and disallow.

 

At the end of the day whether we are cache setter or assessor are trying to make our interest more enjoyable.

 

When on occasions the caches which they are disallowing are already out there in their hundreds and if it wasnt for these caches our little game, hobby, sport would be less entertaining.

 

Yet there get out is that rules are rules................Heh hoo life sometimes sucks

 

ginger4x4

[Alan White]

Bear in mind that Groundspeak is not the only listing site. As is right and proper there is competition in cache listings and what one site does not permit may be welcomed on another.

[+keehotee]

Bear in mind that Groundspeak is not the only listing site. As is right and proper there is competition in cache listings and what one site does not permit may be welcomed on another.

 

So the "other listing sites" will allow you to place caches on land without permission and contrary to local bylaws will they?

the lake had been established as a nature reserve and not only that but there is an old bylaw banning tree climbing in the park

Statements like yours are hardly going to add to their credibility are they.......

[Deceangi]

Bear in mind that Groundspeak is not the only listing site. As is right and proper there is competition in cache listings and what one site does not permit may be welcomed on another.

 

Sorry but I'd suggest you re-read the OP. The Landowner refused permission for the cache, not one of the UK Reviewers, who simply asked for Permission Details due to the Designated Status of the location. The person working for the Landowner who made the decision is a Active Geocacher.

The Council representative [and nature warden] from whom I sought permission [retrospectively] is also a local cacher

 

Also as the OP copied in the UK Reviewers on the refusal email. If he listed it on any Listing Site he'd be not only opening himself up to prosecution but in the event of any Accident to Liability as well, as the cache clearly breaks several local and National laws.

Unfortunately [and unknown to myself] the lake had been established as a nature reserve and not only that but there is an old bylaw banning tree climbing in the park !

 

 

Also any person searching for the cache would also be at risk of prosecution.

 

There is information in the Email the details of which will remain confidential, to back this statement up!

 

There would also be a guarantee that on discovery that this cache had been published after permission was refused. This Landowner would place a Permanent ban on all Geocaches on Land owned/Managed by them!

 

There is also a possibility that the person responsible for making the decision reads this forum! So your post is a good way to alienate a Landowner who for is supportive of Geocaching!

Edited January 22, 2009 by Deceangi

[+Cache U Nutter]

Just to clarify things folks- I have no intention of trying to get this cache published on any other site [whatever these may be]

Never mind the stupid byelaw about tree climbing [the Council representative himself seemed to be in doubt about the rights or wrongs about this]

the site is on a nature reserve and the owner/ manager believes that there could be a conflict of interest if a cache is placed there , even if it was only to get a few visits per year.

Deceangi brought to my attention the fact that the site was a nature reserve [which is not obvious as there are no signs / no details on a normal scale map] On his advice I took the matter further and contacted the council official.

There are a number of caches within the park but alas there will be none on the island.

[+mongoose39uk]

On reading Alans comment, I think it is likely that he miss read the OP.

 

Also he did just say "may" not "will. Also that part reads as a general comment rather than being specific to that cache.

 

Just the way I read it.

Edited January 22, 2009 by mongoose39uk

[+Haggis Hunter]

Bear in mind that Groundspeak is not the only listing site. As is right and proper there is competition in cache listings and what one site does not permit may be welcomed on another.

Bear in mind that Groundspeak take the responsibility of cache placement very seriously, hence why they have rules and guidelines and reviewers who they vet before even asking them to volunteer.

 

Terracaching for example you just need two of your mates to sponsor you and they then review your cache for you. Where is the professionalism in that?

 

It doesn't matter if a landowner finds a Geocache, Terracache or a Navicache. To them they are all part of the same pastime and which site is hosting the container makes no difference as the effects of looking for them are exactly the same.

 

Groundspeak are not perfect, but they do lead the market with our pastime and they do appear to act with the most responsibility.

[+jerryo]

I set up a 6 stage multi in an SSSI once and Deceangi didn't publish it. Obviously! It was my fault for not checking. I had to return and do the 3/5 thing myself for the umpteenth time and take all the stuuf out of trees and off cliffs.

 

I since discovered that County Durham has a blanket ban on all things climbing (according to my contact at the council) so that's why I only have one active cache out at the moment. And I'm thinking about archiving that one soon.

[+keehotee]

I set up a 6 stage multi in an SSSI once and Deceangi didn't publish it. Obviously! It was my fault for not checking. I had to return and do the 3/5 thing myself for the umpteenth time and take all the stuuf out of trees and off cliffs.

 

 

Did he say why he wouldn't publish it? The fact that it was in an SSSI would not necessarily preclude it using either Groundspeaks or GAGB's guidelines.... neither of which ban caches in SSSI's.

[+jerryo]

I set up a 6 stage multi in an SSSI once and Deceangi didn't publish it. Obviously! It was my fault for not checking. I had to return and do the 3/5 thing myself for the umpteenth time and take all the stuuf out of trees and off cliffs.

 

 

Did he say why he wouldn't publish it? The fact that it was in an SSSI would not necessarily preclude it using either Groundspeaks or GAGB's guidelines.... neither of which ban caches in SSSI's.

Oh, sorry I didn't explain that properly: my bad. I didn't have explicit permission and I assumed the blanket permission for the area was adequate. It wouldn't have been anyway because of the climbing ban. It was absolutely not Deceangi's fault in any way!

[+keehotee]

I set up a 6 stage multi in an SSSI once and Deceangi didn't publish it. Obviously! It was my fault for not checking. I had to return and do the 3/5 thing myself for the umpteenth time and take all the stuuf out of trees and off cliffs.

 

 

Did he say why he wouldn't publish it? The fact that it was in an SSSI would not necessarily preclude it using either Groundspeaks or GAGB's guidelines.... neither of which ban caches in SSSI's.

Oh, sorry I didn't explain that properly: my bad. I didn't have explicit permission and I assumed the blanket permission for the area was adequate. It wouldn't have been anyway because of the climbing ban. It was absolutely not Deceangi's fault in any way!

Oh, I see.

Can't find the bit that says a cache in an SSSI needs explicit permission either.

 

 

 

(sorry all - bad news day at work - playing Devil's advocate to cheer myself up)

[+jerryo]

<snip>

(sorry all - bad news day at work - playing Devil's advocate to cheer myself up)

Nothing wrong with that!

 

Actually, I did the same thing later on a couple of weeks before I found out about the climbing ban. There is a sea cliff near me and a sea stack rises very near it so I lobbed an ammo can on top of the stack and wrote up the cache. After the SSSI debacle, I thought I’d better check properly and I was, needless to say, refused permission by the landowner (the council). Did I leave my ammo box there? Nope! I think I’m the first and last person to scale that one, which is a shame. My fault again, though. I think I need to move south so I can do some of Cache U Nutter’s challenges.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I set up a 6 stage multi in an SSSI once and Deceangi didn't publish it. Obviously! It was my fault for not checking. I had to return and do the 3/5 thing myself for the umpteenth time and take all the stuuf out of trees and off cliffs.

 

I since discovered that County Durham has a blanket ban on all things climbing (according to my contact at the council) so that's why I only have one active cache out at the moment. And I'm thinking about archiving that one soon.

I don't think that there is anything like a blanket ban on climbing in County Durham. I know of some seasonal restrictions (e.g. for the Ring Ouzel), and some crags have their own local restrictions (there are certain guidelines to observe when climbing in a SSSI such as Holwick Scar, for instance). But a ban on climbing, even in an SSSI, would cause a huge stink. I don't imagine that's there's the slightest problem with geocaching in an SSSI either, unless there has been trouble.

 

Pick your climb in Co. Durham!

Edited January 22, 2009 by Happy Humphrey

[+jerryo]

I set up a 6 stage multi in an SSSI once and Deceangi didn't publish it. Obviously! It was my fault for not checking. I had to return and do the 3/5 thing myself for the umpteenth time and take all the stuuf out of trees and off cliffs.

 

I since discovered that County Durham has a blanket ban on all things climbing (according to my contact at the council) so that's why I only have one active cache out at the moment. And I'm thinking about archiving that one soon.

I don't think that there is anything like a blanket ban on climbing in County Durham. I know of some seasonal restrictions (e.g. for the Ring Ouzel), and some crags have their own local restrictions (there are certain guidelines to observe when climbing in a SSSI such as Holwick Scar, for instance). But a ban on climbing, even in an SSSI, would cause a huge stink. I don't imagine that's there's the slightest problem with geocaching in an SSSI either, unless there has been trouble.

 

Pick your climb in Co. Durham!

 

There is as far as geocaching is concerned though. That's what I was told by the ranger responsible for the area. I know of quite a few climbing areas in the Northeast but it's not that that's the problem; it's the "encouraging" non-climbers to do "dangerous" activities where there is a problem. The guy said no. What can I do?

[+Happy Humphrey]

There is as far as geocaching is concerned though. That's what I was told by the ranger responsible for the area. I know of quite a few climbing areas in the Northeast but it's not that that's the problem; it's the "encouraging" non-climbers to do "dangerous" activities where there is a problem. The guy said no. What can I do?

I see that you mean climbing to a geocache, and of course you're right that there's not much you can do.

 

But I'd point out to him that the existence of access agreements, climbing guidebooks and databases has exactly the same effect (encouraging non-climbers to climb) and no-one is wanting to ban them. Or at least, no-one with any power to do so.

 

There's not actually such a thing as a "non-climber" anyway; anyone can turn up at any accessible cliff and start climbing. You don't need any qualifications or gear. I've climbed massive cliffs on my own with no rope or safety gear many times, and no-one tried to stop me (thank goodness for such freedom!). Many beginners just start up a rock climb unsupervised and with no knowledge of safety techniques, and (generally!) there's no problem.

[+jerryo]

<snip>

There's not actually such a thing as a "non-climber" anyway; anyone can turn up at any accessible cliff and start climbing. You don't need any qualifications or gear. I've climbed massive cliffs on my own with no rope or safety gear many times, and no-one tried to stop me (thank goodness for such freedom!). Many beginners just start up a rock climb unsupervised and with no knowledge of safety techniques, and (generally!) there's no problem.

That's very true. And isn't it fun? You only hear about the sad cases when there's an accident but there must be people all over the place taking risks. And refusing to grow up.

[Alan White]

What upsets me about all of this is the fact that we have our own set of rules in the UK

That's an interesting comment, though I think you'll need to expand on it before we can have a meaningful discussion.

 

If you're referring to Groundspeak's rules then you may recall a discussion on this forum almost a year ago when it was made clear that we didn't and couldn't have our own set of rules in the UK. Since then, it does seem that there have been some unannounced changes and that maybe we do now have our own rules, even to the extent that it's the local rules which prevail over the general rules. Of course, because the changes, if indeed there have been any, haven't been announced then I don't know if they've occurred or not .

[+careygang]

O.K this one had been planned for over a year. It involved a micro 70ft up a tree in the middle of a lake on an island. It would have been a 5/5 'extreme' cache.

 

 

I actually thought this was all a joke until I read Deceangi's explanation...

 

I don't really see the point of the OP, despite the row of smiles.

 

From the description given, this is clearly not a regular 'boating lake' and requires swimming or boating (with your own boat) to get to the island. I'm presuming it is pretty deserted normally, so why do all that before asking permission?

 

Permission refused by land owner.

 

Live with it.

 

Move on.

[+Cache U Nutter]

O.K this one had been planned for over a year. It involved a micro 70ft up a tree in the middle of a lake on an island. It would have been a 5/5 'extreme' cache.

 

 

I actually thought this was all a joke until I read Deceangi's explanation...

 

I don't really see the point of the OP, despite the row of smiles.

 

From the description given, this is clearly not a regular 'boating lake' and requires swimming or boating (with your own boat) to get to the island. I'm presuming it is pretty deserted normally, so why do all that before asking permission?

 

Permission refused by land owner.

 

Live with it.

 

Move on.

[+Happy Humphrey]

...

Come people, common sense has one of these days got to prevail

I sympathise; there's no simple answer and that can of worms deserves a separate thread. I would point out that you don't need permission at all to place a cache; there are a few locations where it could cause a genuine "incident" but application of common sense would generally prevent that happening.

 

However, you might find it impossible to list it on geocaching.com. That doesn't mean that the cache doesn't exist, however!

Edited January 23, 2009 by Happy Humphrey

[+Happy Humphrey]

 

I don't really see the point of the OP, despite the row of smiles.

 

From the description given, this is clearly not a regular 'boating lake' and requires swimming or boating (with your own boat) to get to the island. I'm presuming it is pretty deserted normally, so why do all that before asking permission?

 

Permission refused by land owner.

 

Live with it.

 

Move on.

I think the point was to see if anyone had similar tales of woe. Sounds reasonable to me; perhaps you took offence due to a misunderstanding?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Also as the OP copied in the UK Reviewers on the refusal email. If he listed it on any Listing Site he'd be not only opening himself up to prosecution but in the event of any Accident to Liability as well, as the cache clearly breaks several local and National laws.

Just to clarify first, I'm not trying to argue that the cache should have been "allowed". It appears that once permission was refused the cache was removed, and everything is now proper and official. The OP isn't arguing that there was anything wrong with this either. And I can accept that we don't want to break any laws.

 

But I've always been intrigued as to which laws would be invoked to prohibit placing of caches. You say that the cache clearly breaks several local and National laws. It doesn't seem so clear to me. All I can see is that a bylaw prohibiting climbing trees in the park was broken when the cache was placed. There's no mention of a bylaw (or national law) prohibiting having a cache in a tree.

 

Would you kindly help educate us by specifying what these particular laws are? I wouldn't ask, but you give the impression that you have the details to hand. It could be very useful to know exactly what to avoid when considering a cache placement, permission issues aside.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Happy Humphrey

[+Haggis Hunter]

I would have thought that if you didn't have the permission from the land owner you were in effect littering, which is against the law regardless of where you are in the UK.

[Deceangi]

Also as the OP copied in the UK Reviewers on the refusal email. If he listed it on any Listing Site he'd be not only opening himself up to prosecution but in the event of any Accident to Liability as well, as the cache clearly breaks several local and National laws.

Just to clarify first, I'm not trying to argue that the cache should have been "allowed". It appears that once permission was refused the cache was removed, and everything is now proper and official. The OP isn't arguing that there was anything wrong with this either. And I can accept that we don't want to break any laws.

 

But I've always been intrigued as to which laws would be invoked to prohibit placing of caches. You say that the cache clearly breaks several local and National laws. It doesn't seem so clear to me. All I can see is that a bylaw prohibiting climbing trees in the park was broken when the cache was placed. There's no mention of a bylaw (or national law) prohibiting having a cache in a tree.

 

Would you kindly help educate us by specifying what these particular laws are? I wouldn't ask, but you give the impression that you have the details to hand. It could be very useful to know exactly what to avoid when considering a cache placement, permission issues aside.

 

The Wildlife and Countryside Act. Which can carry a large fine of up to £5,000 or even a 6 month Prison sentence!

 

In this case the Landowner being in possession of information both the Reviewer and the Cache Owner were not aware of.

 

Sometimes there are specific reasons why a cache may not be placed in a specific location, the Landowner being the best person to know this.

[+parkmoy]

I see that you mean climbing to a geocache, and of course you're right that there's not much you can do.

 

But I'd point out to him that the existence of access agreements, climbing guidebooks and databases has exactly the same effect (encouraging non-climbers to climb) and no-one is wanting to ban them. Or at least, no-one with any power to do so.

 

There's not actually such a thing as a "non-climber" anyway; anyone can turn up at any accessible cliff and start climbing. You don't need any qualifications or gear. I've climbed massive cliffs on my own with no rope or safety gear many times, and no-one tried to stop me (thank goodness for such freedom!). Many beginners just start up a rock climb unsupervised and with no knowledge of safety techniques, and (generally!) there's no problem.

 

I think there is a difference here. Someone who wants to scale a cliff or start up a rock climb presumably feel themselves competent to do so whether or not they are. If they have been encouraged by reading climbing guide books or other literature they may have some idea of what is involved. They will probably start with easy climbs and learn by experience.

 

Someone who is after a cache may well be tempted to try something they would not otherwise dream of doing, don't even have a basic knowledge of, and common sense may go out the window and they may tackle something way beyond their capabilities just to get a lunchbox. I know everyone should take responsibility for their own actions but some will always give in to temptation.

 

Whether that in itself should lead to a blanket ban on climbing caches is another matter but I can see where the council is coming from.

[+Happy Humphrey]

The Wildlife and Countryside Act. Which can carry a large fine of up to £5,000 or even a 6 month Prison sentence!

 

In this case the Landowner being in possession of information both the Reviewer and the Cache Owner were not aware of.

 

Sometimes there are specific reasons why a cache may not be placed in a specific location, the Landowner being the best person to know this.

Sorry, I've had a quick look at this Act and (no surprisingly) there's no mention of caches. But it's quite lengthy. I know you're not a lawyer, but which section is the relevant one? I guess that you're saying the the park in question is a National Nature Reserve but the law still seems unclear to me.

 

I would have thought that if you didn't have the permission from the land owner you were in effect littering, which is against the law regardless of where you are in the UK.

I think we've discussed this before, and it's not litter if you're intending to return to it (e.g. for cache maintenance); so that one is a red herring.

[+Happy Humphrey]

 

so we should ban cars because someone may be tempted to cross the road.

 

Please allow people to make their own decisions in life, if they want to climb, let them, if they want to sit in armchairs let them.

 

The council is made up of individuals that we vote in to supposedly support our views, how many peoples view is it that we must not climb trees. sometimes I despair of the rubbish that people will follow just because the council says so.

 

Fight for your right to make your own decisions instead of blindly following

I completely agree, and I suspect that others from a climbing background will sympathise too. Unfortunately, the notion that there's a responsibility to "ban" people from "dangerous" situations has become prevalent.

I always think it's sad, that when regarding various activities as "risky", people fail to put it in perspective with the real danger we routinely take for granted. Just imagine, as your car hurtles along a wet A-road in the dark, what an awful disaster it would be if you merely move your hands a little instead of keeping them held straight. Or if one of the approaching drivers simply looks out of the side window for ten seconds instead of ahead, or faints, or misjudges the road width, or whatever. We've all heard the accident reports too, so it's not just a theoretical danger.

 

And yet attempting to climb a tree is seen as so dangerous it warrants a ban, even though virtually everyone will either climb it safely, or back off as soon as they realise what's required.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Happy Humphrey

[+Haggis Hunter]

I would have thought that if you didn't have the permission from the land owner you were in effect littering, which is against the law regardless of where you are in the UK.

I think we've discussed this before, and it's not litter if you're intending to return to it (e.g. for cache maintenance); so that one is a red herring.

So I am walking my dog's and one of them does what a dog does and I scoop it up, but rather than walking for 30 minutes with a smelly bag I decide to hang it on a fence post, tree branch or put it at the side of the path, with the full intention of coming back and removing it correctly. However just as I step away I am stopped by an official warden and fined on the spot. They won't listen to my excuses as they have heard them all before.

This example is no different from leaving a container lying, it being found and you saying, but I was going to come back for it, it does belong to me. A landowner who has already banned them from being placed will regard them as litter, which is the context I was speaking in, as that is what this discussion is about.

 

So in this case your reply is the red herring.

 

Also if the banning of caches is due to concerns of damage to plants or property then the placer is liable for any damage caused for placing it on the property knowing there wasn't permission. Please don't say damage doesn't happen, I had to archive one of my caches because of selfish cachers causing damage.

[+Happy Humphrey]

A landowner who has already banned them from being placed will regard them as litter, which is the context I was speaking in, as that is what this discussion is about.

I don't agree, but we've probably taken this OT too much already, so I suggest digging up one of the old threads on the topic if you're interested enough, or starting a new topic.

Also if the banning of caches is due to concerns of damage to plants or property then the placer is liable for any damage caused for placing it on the property knowing there wasn't permission. Please don't say damage doesn't happen, I had to archive one of my caches because of selfish cachers causing damage.

That may be so, and I have seen damage too, but I was after the specific laws which prohibit placing of caches. I think it would be useful for the GAGB (for instance) to be able to quote the exact law, so that there's no ambiguity about what is an illegally-placed cache (as this one apparently was) and what is an inadvisable cache placement (for instance, where access could cause problems in the future).

[+The Blorenges]

Coincidentally, there's another discussion going on about advanced tree-climbing for caches over in the Geocaching topics forum. Link below for those who haven't seen it:

 

Technical tree climbing and geocaching.

 

MrsB

[+Woodruff Sycamorph]

[snip]

So I am walking my dog's and one of them does what a dog does and I scoop it up, but rather than walking for 30 minutes with a smelly bag I decide to hang it on a fence post, tree branch or put it at the side of the path, with the full intention of coming back and removing it correctly. However just as I step away I am stopped by an official warden and fined on the spot. They won't listen to my excuses as they have heard them all before.

This example is no different from leaving a container lying, it being found and you saying, but I was going to come back for it, it does belong to me.[/snip]

 

If you attached your contact details to the bag of poo, clearly marked, stating what the contents are and giving your mobile number, email address etc and it indicated your intent to collect it on your return, the warden would have a hard time dismissing your excuse.

[Deceangi]

Sorry but at no point did I state that the cache was in breach of the Wildlife and Countryside act, just that the Cache owner and any potential searchers risked being in breach of it. As you have looked at the act you will have seen exactly why the penalties can be applied for a breach of the act. Geocaching is not mentioned but specific acts are.

 

if you do a search you'll find that there have been caches published, with involve serious climbs, and not just up natural locations.

 

Actually it was a Council Employee, who refused permission for the placement. This person is aware of other caches on council property, and who is a active Geocacher. But has no issues with those hides.

[+adsandco]

[snip]

So I am walking my dog's and one of them does what a dog does and I scoop it up, but rather than walking for 30 minutes with a smelly bag I decide to hang it on a fence post, tree branch or put it at the side of the path, with the full intention of coming back and removing it correctly. However just as I step away I am stopped by an official warden and fined on the spot. They won't listen to my excuses as they have heard them all before.

This example is no different from leaving a container lying, it being found and you saying, but I was going to come back for it, it does belong to me.[/snip]

 

If you attached your contact details to the bag of poo, clearly marked, stating what the contents are and giving your mobile number, email address etc and it indicated your intent to collect it on your return, the warden would have a hard time dismissing your excuse.

 

Not in a plastic bag though surely? oops wrong thread...

 

Edited January 23, 2009 by adsandco

[+Morton]

Sorry, I've had a quick look at this Act and (no surprisingly) there's no mention of caches. But it's quite lengthy. I know you're not a lawyer, but which section is the relevant one? I guess that you're saying the the park in question is a National Nature Reserve but the law still seems unclear to me.

This isn't my area of expertise so the following should not be taken as advice. But from a quick look, Section 28 appears to allow the appropriate authority to make an order which says, for example, "the cliffs in this area are a special habitat which might be damaged by climbing them". The landowner then may not permit that activity to happen, except in various special circumstances.

 

If the landowner then knowingly allowed a geocache to be placed where it could only be accessed by climbing the cliff, they would obviously be "permitting" it, in my view, and would be open to prosecution.

 

(Of course the more important reason for not placing the cache there would be a moral one - to avoid damaging the sensitive area - but as the law has been brought up, I think that's one way it would apply. There may well be other ways too.)

 

The key thing here is that it's perfectly possible for the SSSI next door to have completely common-or-garden unexceptional cliffs, but be important for some other reason. In that case, the order wouldn't mention the cliffs and it would be fine to climb them, all other things being equal. So the comments like "there's no blanket ban on placing caches in SSSIs" are true (subject to landowner permission of course) but not necessarily relevant.

 

As Deci said: "Sometimes there are specific reasons why a cache may not be placed in a specific location, the Landowner being the best person to know this."

Edited January 23, 2009 by Morton

[+Happy Humphrey]

Sorry but at no point did I state that the cache was in breach of the Wildlife and Countryside act, just that the Cache owner and any potential searchers risked being in breach of it. As you have looked at the act you will have seen exactly why the penalties can be applied for a breach of the act. Geocaching is not mentioned but specific acts are.

I took your

If he listed it on any Listing Site he'd be not only opening himself up to prosecution but in the event of any Accident to Liability as well, as the cache clearly breaks several local and National laws.

...to mean that the cache was in breach of several laws. But no matter!

 

if you do a search you'll find that there have been caches published, with involve serious climbs, and not just up natural locations.

I'm aware of that; but apparently they're not allowed in County Durham.

Actually it was a Council Employee, who refused permission for the placement. This person is aware of other caches on council property, and who is a active Geocacher. But has no issues with those hides.

Yes, I tried to make sure that you realised that I had no issue with the way this particular cache was treated. My question was to try and get a quote from the relevant legal documents that would allow us to be sure what was legal and what was illegal. You seemed to be saying that you were aware of laws that would be broken by listing this one, so it looked like a good moment to ask for more detail. If we don't really know the local/national laws, others might risk prosecution (and even prison, apparently) without knowing.

[+Happy Humphrey]

(Of course the more important reason for not placing the cache there would be a moral one - to avoid damaging the sensitive area - but as the law has been brought up, I think that's one way it would apply. There may well be other ways too.)

 

The key thing here is that it's perfectly possible for the SSSI next door to have completely common-or-garden unexceptional cliffs, but be important for some other reason. In that case, the order wouldn't mention the cliffs and it would be fine to climb them, all other things being equal. So the comments like "there's no blanket ban on placing caches in SSSIs" are true (subject to landowner permission of course) but not necessarily relevant.

 

As Deci said: "Sometimes there are specific reasons why a cache may not be placed in a specific location, the Landowner being the best person to know this."

The link I gave further up the thread (Holwick Scar) is a typical case. The cliff face is part of the SSSI and has a "rich diversity of rare species and relict (sic) arctic-alpine plants". Access is allowed to the SSSI and you're allowed to climb amongst the rare species, but there are certain reasonable restrictions so that too much damage isn't caused (so you can't just strip the crag of vegetation with your trowel and strimmer, for instance).

Although this is advice for climbers, climbing and geocaching are surprisingly closely-related hobbies so it does have relevance to the thread.

[+Morton]

The link I gave further up the thread (Holwick Scar) is a typical case. The cliff face is part of the SSSI and has a "rich diversity of rare species and relict (sic) arctic-alpine plants". Access is allowed to the SSSI and you're allowed to climb amongst the rare species, but there are certain reasonable restrictions so that too much damage isn't caused (so you can't just strip the crag of vegetation with your trowel and strimmer, for instance).

Yes, and that link makes it clear that there were extensive negotiations between the BMC and the relevant authority (English Nature in this case), resulting in a quite detailed definition of exactly where you can and can't go in the area. (For anyone who hasn't visited the link, "you can't strip the crag of vegetation" isn't a full summary of what it says )

 

If you went through a similar process with your (hypothetical) geocache site of choice - leading to formal documented agreement with the landowner and the competent body in your area, and with the limitations all explained on the cache page - then I'm sure your friendly local reviewer would be happy to publish the cache.

 

This doesn't change the basic fact that [a] there are places within some SSSIs where it would be illegal to allow the placement of a cache, there are other places within SSSIs where it wouldn't be illegal to allow the placement of a cache and [c] the landowner will know which is which because they get served the notification.

 

So, no blanket bans, no blanket permission and no simple summary of the rules; it has to be discussed and decided case by case. Sometimes life's like that.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Yep, I agree.

[+Haggis Hunter]

Big snip.....

 

This doesn't change the basic fact that [a] there are places within some SSSIs where it would be illegal to allow the placement of a cache, .................little snip

That is unless your name is Donald Trump! You would be able to get away with anything you like on an SSSI

[+careygang]

Big snip.....

 

This doesn't change the basic fact that [a] there are places within some SSSIs where it would be illegal to allow the placement of a cache, .................little snip

That is unless your name is Donald Trump! You would be able to get away with anything you like on an SSSI

 

 

??

[+Happy Humphrey]

??

Google it. Puts trying to get permission to hide a microcache in an SSSI car park into perspective!

[Alan White]

the Landowner being the best person to know this.

Ho, ho. You mean like they know that they're required to maintain stiles, gates, bridges etc on RoWs, and to restore RoWs across ploughed fields within a reasonable period, and to maintain the route of a RoW through crops? I've lost count of the number of times I've had to report issues like this to the local authority.

 

Like the Ramblers Association, we should be fighting these people not yielding to them and walking away backwards tugging our forelock. Remember, most organisations where we might want to place a cache are either public or receive large amounts of public funds. "Their" land mostly belongs to us. Even the chairman of the FC said so on TV.

[Deceangi]

the Landowner being the best person to know this.

Ho, ho. You mean like they know that they're required to maintain stiles, gates, bridges etc on RoWs, and to restore RoWs across ploughed fields within a reasonable period, and to maintain the route of a RoW through crops? I've lost count of the number of times I've had to report issues like this to the local authority.

 

Like the Ramblers Association, we should be fighting these people not yielding to them and walking away backwards tugging our forelock. Remember, most organisations where we might want to place a cache are either public or receive large amounts of public funds. "Their" land mostly belongs to us. Even the chairman of the FC said so on TV.

 

Actually I said

Sometimes there are specific reasons why a cache may not be placed in a specific location, the Landowner being the best person to know this.

 

Which has a very different meaning to how you have selectively quoted me! In this case it was a issue which was covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, information that the Cache Owner was not aware of when setting the cache, neither did I when I requested the Cache Owner produce Permission for the Cache. But which the Landowner was fully aware off!

 

Deceangi

[+mongoose39uk]

the Landowner being the best person to know this.

Ho, ho. You mean like they know that they're required to maintain stiles, gates, bridges etc on RoWs, and to restore RoWs across ploughed fields within a reasonable period, and to maintain the route of a RoW through crops? I've lost count of the number of times I've had to report issues like this to the local authority.

 

Like the Ramblers Association, we should be fighting these people not yielding to them and walking away backwards tugging our forelock. Remember, most organisations where we might want to place a cache are either public or receive large amounts of public funds. "Their" land mostly belongs to us. Even the chairman of the FC said so on TV.

 

They saod Bobby Ewing was dead on TV

[+Munkeh]

the Landowner being the best person to know this.

Ho, ho. You mean like they know that they're required to maintain stiles, gates, bridges etc on RoWs, and to restore RoWs across ploughed fields within a reasonable period, and to maintain the route of a RoW through crops? I've lost count of the number of times I've had to report issues like this to the local authority.

 

Like the Ramblers Association, we should be fighting these people not yielding to them and walking away backwards tugging our forelock. Remember, most organisations where we might want to place a cache are either public or receive large amounts of public funds. "Their" land mostly belongs to us. Even the chairman of the FC said so on TV.

 

They saod Bobby Ewing was dead on TV

 

did he fall over a badly maintained stile?

[+drdick&vick]

the Landowner being the best person to know this.

Ho, ho. You mean like they know that they're required to maintain stiles, gates, bridges etc on RoWs, and to restore RoWs across ploughed fields within a reasonable period, and to maintain the route of a RoW through crops? I've lost count of the number of times I've had to report issues like this to the local authority.

 

Like the Ramblers Association, we should be fighting these people not yielding to them and walking away backwards tugging our forelock. Remember, most organisations where we might want to place a cache are either public or receive large amounts of public funds. "Their" land mostly belongs to us. Even the chairman of the FC said so on TV.

 

Actually I said

Sometimes there are specific reasons why a cache may not be placed in a specific location, the Landowner being the best person to know this.

 

Which has a very different meaning to how you have selectively quoted me! In this case it was a issue which was covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, information that the Cache Owner was not aware of when setting the cache, neither did I when I requested the Cache Owner produce Permission for the Cache. But which the Landowner was fully aware off!

 

Deceangi

 

'Selective quoting' surely not something that Mr White would do

[+careygang]

??

Google it. Puts trying to get permission to hide a microcache in an SSSI car park into perspective!

 

I kind of see what you are saying, but I don't want to open another can of worms ...

[+Haggis Hunter]

Like the Ramblers Association, we should be fighting these people not yielding to them and walking away backwards tugging our forelock.

You are having a larf aren't you??? As much as I respect the Ramblers Association do we want to find ourselves totally alienated from landowners as I believe the Ramblers Association are, otherwise they wouldn't be in court the whole time fighting for the right to cross land. The day we have to take a landowner to court to place a cache is the day our pastime starts sliding downhill. It doesn't matter if public money pays for the land, as that same money also pays for the land manager to make decisions on how to manage. I have found that most landowners are approachable and they voice their concerns openly, if we go down the route of the Ramblers they will cringe and clam up at the mere mention of Geocaching.