+keehotee Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 The long awaited agreement with the FC in Devon, Cornwall and the west of Somerset is now up and running. Due to the widespread nature of the FC's woodlands - and the large number of leased woods - there will be a little map trawling involved if you do wish to hide a cache in FC areas, but hopefully you'll find your way about the maps OK. More details - and links to the maps - here We are in the process of converting these pdf's to Google kml's - so please bear with us until they are complete. Under this agreement, there will be no need to seek separate permission for caches placed in FC woodlands in Devon, Cornwall and west Somerset. However, not all the woodland is owned by the FC, and they are unable to give carte blanche permission for leased woodlands. You will still need to get specific permission for caches in these leased areas. You will also see that cache sizes are restricted to containers over 100ml only. This is NOT an anti-micro move, but follows concerns that the FC have in various areas over livestock and wild animals being able to swallow and choke on smaller containers. Good luck , and happy caching....... Quote Link to comment
+Lovejoy and Tinker Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Excellent information. Thanks for posting. And for the work that has obviously gone on 'behind the scenes' to get this agreement in place for the benefit of all. Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted September 6, 2010 Author Share Posted September 6, 2010 One other point that isn't specifically mentioned in the agreement, but has the potential to cause conflict with the MAGIC map... The FC have taken the view that if any of their woodlands are within SSSI's, and this hasn't stopped the public from having recreational access - then caching should also be allowed to take place. ie caching hasn't been banned in any of the FC areas under this agreement just because those areas are SSSIs. IMO this is great news, and shows some real joined up thinking - and I can only hope that more landowners soon take the same view Quote Link to comment
+spannerman Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 One other point that isn't specifically mentioned in the agreement, but has the potential to cause conflict with the MAGIC map... The FC have taken the view that if any of their woodlands are within SSSI's, and this hasn't stopped the public from having recreational access - then caching should also be allowed to take place. ie caching hasn't been banned in any of the FC areas under this agreement just because those areas are SSSIs. IMO this is great news, and shows some real joined up thinking - and I can only hope that more landowners soon take the same view Nice one! that answers my immediate question on reading the initial post but can our reviewers confirm that they will not require specific permission if a cache is sited on FC land within a SSSI. Quote Link to comment
+Stuey Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Great news Tim, thanks! Quote Link to comment
+The_Street_Searchers Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 This agreement really shows the benifit of the GAGB - great work guys and thanks to you all Quote Link to comment
+Graculus Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 One other point that isn't specifically mentioned in the agreement, but has the potential to cause conflict with the MAGIC map... The FC have taken the view that if any of their woodlands are within SSSI's, and this hasn't stopped the public from having recreational access - then caching should also be allowed to take place. ie caching hasn't been banned in any of the FC areas under this agreement just because those areas are SSSIs. IMO this is great news, and shows some real joined up thinking - and I can only hope that more landowners soon take the same view Nice one! that answers my immediate question on reading the initial post but can our reviewers confirm that they will not require specific permission if a cache is sited on FC land within a SSSI. I have asked about this. I think the agreement needs to say that caches within SSSI's are allowed rather than us just knowing they are allowed. If we then publish a cache in such a location within the agreement area and someone raises a question why we did so we have the words to point them to. Chris Graculus Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk Geocaching.com Knowledge Books Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted September 7, 2010 Author Share Posted September 7, 2010 (edited) One other point that isn't specifically mentioned in the agreement, but has the potential to cause conflict with the MAGIC map... The FC have taken the view that if any of their woodlands are within SSSI's, and this hasn't stopped the public from having recreational access - then caching should also be allowed to take place. ie caching hasn't been banned in any of the FC areas under this agreement just because those areas are SSSIs. IMO this is great news, and shows some real joined up thinking - and I can only hope that more landowners soon take the same view Nice one! that answers my immediate question on reading the initial post but can our reviewers confirm that they will not require specific permission if a cache is sited on FC land within a SSSI. I have asked about this. I think the agreement needs to say that caches within SSSI's are allowed rather than us just knowing they are allowed. If we then publish a cache in such a location within the agreement area and someone raises a question why we did so we have the words to point them to. Chris Graculus Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk Geocaching.com Knowledge Books I have asked them to clarify... but would MAGIC normally take precedence over a landowner agreement? Edited September 7, 2010 by keehotee Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted September 7, 2010 Author Share Posted September 7, 2010 (edited) One other point that isn't specifically mentioned in the agreement, but has the potential to cause conflict with the MAGIC map... The FC have taken the view that if any of their woodlands are within SSSI's, and this hasn't stopped the public from having recreational access - then caching should also be allowed to take place. ie caching hasn't been banned in any of the FC areas under this agreement just because those areas are SSSIs. IMO this is great news, and shows some real joined up thinking - and I can only hope that more landowners soon take the same view Nice one! that answers my immediate question on reading the initial post but can our reviewers confirm that they will not require specific permission if a cache is sited on FC land within a SSSI. I have asked about this. I think the agreement needs to say that caches within SSSI's are allowed rather than us just knowing they are allowed. If we then publish a cache in such a location within the agreement area and someone raises a question why we did so we have the words to point them to. Chris Graculus Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk Geocaching.com Knowledge Books I have asked them to clarify... but would MAGIC normally take precedence over a landowner agreement? The FC have confirmed that this is the case I have had a reply from Stephen Lees at the FC as follows... I can confirm that SSSI status was not seen as a problem with regard to geocaching in Peninsula District FC woodlands. Our SSSI designations are primarily based around heathland and large conifer trees for birds of prey. Our SSSI sites all have open access under CRoW, and providing the guidelines within our agreement with GAGB are followed (no hole digging etc) we do not believe that the caching will be detrimental to the SSSI status. This will be subject to review on an annual basis, as per the signed agreement. Edited September 7, 2010 by keehotee Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 In reply to but would MAGIC normally take precedence over a landowner agreement? Where a Landowner has specifically stated that Blanket permission covers any property they own which is a Designated SSSI, then no. But where there is no clarification in advance, we err on the side of caution and ask for Proof of Permission for the Designated location. If the SW FC specifically state that the Blanket Agreement covers properties that they own (not Manage on behalf of someone else) which are Designated SSSI, then there will not be a requirement for Proof of Permission. Unlike like what some believe, we do not require Permission of the Designating Authority Natural England-CCW-SNHi unless they specifically own the location. Just the Permission of the Landowner, who may decide to require Approval off the Designating Authority. But that is for the Land Owner to decide. The UK Reviewers do not have access to the full details in regards to why a location is designated, so leave it up to the Landowner to make a informed decision. Snowdon is accessed by hundreds of thousands every year and is a SSSI. And the Landowner CCW is happy to give Permission for caches on the mountain. They have only refused one cache permission. That was due to the location being the home of a Rare and Legally Protected Plant. Those arguing that as people access SSSI's without restriction, would have had me publish that cache without requiring Proof of Permission. That would have opened the cache owner and cachers searching for that cache to possible criminal prosecution. A separate case of a cache up a Tree, the area a Public Park. Which happened to be a Designated SSSI. Because the Owner was required to Provide Proof of Permission for the cache. He found out that the Tree was the home to a colony of Bats, a protected species. Which it is a Criminal Offence to Disturb. Yet the Park is open to all. These are just 2 of the reasons the UK Reviewers require Proof of Permission for SSSI's. Just because a SSSI is Open Access, it doesn't mean that a specific location is not extremely sensitive. And that visitors to that specific location should be encouraged. You only have to read This Topic to see what damage cachers cause to cache locations. And whilst we don't yet know if this is a Designated SSSI or not. This is not the first such location trashed by Geocachers. Another location where Bluebells were trampled down due to a cache being located there without permission. Caused a Wildlife Trust to Ban Geocaching, resulting in over 30 caches being Archived. 4 of which had a Local Managers Permission. Now compare that to the Designating Authorities Banning Geocaching in SSSI's because a cache placed without Landowner Permission, has cause a Rare Plant to be damaged or a Protected Animal/Bird to be affected. When Geocachers stop unthinkingly causing Damage to cache locations, then the UK Reviewers will be able to stop requiring Proof of Permission for SSSI's. To be honest, it's not something I can ever see happening! People understand the reasoning behind the Ban of Dry Stone Walls is in place to protect Geocaching in the UK. Yet refuse to understand the requirement for Proof of Permission for a cache in a SSSI is in place for the same reason! Yet when they submit their caches, they agree that they have adequate Permission! Oh and can we please get something extremely clear! There is not a Ban on Caches in SSSi's, just a requirement for Proof of Landowner Permission! Deci Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 ...? I'm not sure if that means that the reviewers will accept this blanket permission or not. Rants aside, it was a great achievement getting this sorted. It actually looks like the FC representative understands the game quite well, which suggests that the GAGB have done a good job of presenting the request. Well done all round. Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 ...? I'm not sure if that means that the reviewers will accept this blanket permission or not. Rants aside, it was a great achievement getting this sorted. It actually looks like the FC representative understands the game quite well, which suggests that the GAGB have done a good job of presenting the request. Well done all round. Sorry but as Keehotee had already posted before I made my post. That the SW FC are giving Blanket Permission covering SSSI's. My reply was specifically to his querying but would MAGIC normally take precedence over a landowner agreement? Which I read as asking, would the UK Reviewers still ask for Proof of Permission for SSSI's where there is a Blanket Land Owner Permission Agreement. my reply was Where a Landowner has specifically stated that Blanket permission covers any property they own which is a Designated SSSI, then no. But where there is no clarification in advance, we err on the side of caution and ask for Proof of Permission for the Designated location. Which made it clear that as long as a Blanket Permission Agreement Specifically States the SSSI's are covered by the Blanket Permission. We would not as for Proof of Permission. And sorry but my post was not a rant, but a clarification of why we will not drop the requirement for Proof of Permission for SSSI's and why. Despite several members being of a opinion that if the public are allowed to visit a location whatever the designation. We should not be asking for Proof of Permission! Unfortunately not all members reading this topic, will have been members long enough to understand why the UK Reviewers have a requirement for Proof of Permission for SSSI's. So the explanation as to why helps them understand as to why. Deci Quote Link to comment
+Graculus Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 The areas where the FC have said no to caches - either due to sensitivity or that they do not own them have been identified and will soon be available for people to see in the GAGB landowner database. Any cache submitted in one of these areas will be politely rejected A my colleague Deceangi has said if it is within an allowed woodland which is also an SSSI then it will be published under the terms of the agreement. Chris Graculus Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk Geocaching.com Knowledge Books Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted September 7, 2010 Author Share Posted September 7, 2010 The areas where the FC have said no to caches - either due to sensitivity or that they do not own them have been identified and will soon be available for people to see in the GAGB landowner database. Any cache submitted in one of these areas will be politely rejected A my colleague Deceangi has said if it is within an allowed woodland which is also an SSSI then it will be published under the terms of the agreement. Chris Graculus Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk Geocaching.com Knowledge Books Thanks Chris and Dave the maps are online, with the agreement - albeit in pdf form only at the moment. It should be possible to browse the area you require, as Google docs (where I've put the maps for the time being) thumbnails pdfs. Before too long we hope to have them up as a Google overlay as well, which should make hiders and reviewers lives far easier I have to state here, as well, that by far the biggest player in this agreement has been The Forestry Commission. They approached us (the GAGB) in the first instance - having recognized that caching was taking place in their woodlands - and was unlikely to go away . They have been proactive from the outset, and the recreation Manager at Peninsula (Haldon) has involved every local land manager in the area in formulating the agreement and identifying their woodlands for us. We merely acted as go-betweens - and somewhere to host the agreement Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 And sorry but my post was not a rant, but a clarification of why we will not drop the requirement for Proof of Permission for SSSI's and why. Despite several members being of a opinion that if the public are allowed to visit a location whatever the designation. We should not be asking for Proof of Permission! Well, then that was an answer to a question that wasn't asked here, and to me came over as, how shall I put it, a stern lecture where I didn't think it was warranted. No one said that the SSSI requirement should be dropped (unless I missed that bit), it was merely a question about whether SSSI status still trumped the FC blanket permission. Be that as it may, I also offer congratulations to the Forestry Commission for a realistic and practical approach to this pastime, and I'm happy to accept this as an illustration of "why we need the GAGB". Let's hope that other FC regions will see this as a good solution, and make similar moves. Quote Link to comment
+goldpot Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Well done to all involved and a big thank-you to the people at the Forest Commission. Looks like more forest walks to come when in the SW. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.