+Aggrajag Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I'm writing this only 10 minutes after reading a rejection email so I will try my hardest to be objective but I've had a 6 mile series of 15 caches rejected by the forester on account of it creating new formal trails. I took this to mean new routes but he explains he means new footfall, new people, and this would involve a higher duty of care - even though I was sticking entirely to existing easy-to-use roads and paths. It seems as though they don't want people to use their woods, or am I missing something? Gutted. Quote Link to comment
+Unobtainium Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 You wait until it's privatised! Quote Link to comment
+Boltonian Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 You wait until it's privatised! That's not funny, nor worthy of thinking about. Its disgusting what this government are trying to do in our names. Quote Link to comment
+Unobtainium Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I've had a very disappointing letter back from my MP on the subject in which she tries to justify the sale. I'm not convinced to say the least. Quote Link to comment
+Yorkie30 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Caches already on forestry commission land if they are sold off may need to be removed unless permission is sought from the new owners if you can if out who they are. Could be a big problem in the coming months or years depending how long it takes for the government to convince people to take them on. Quote Link to comment
+Graculus Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The forestry commission are very supportive of geocaching. The Geocaching Association of Great Britain (GAGB) have many agreements in place which allow caching to take place on FC land from the north of Scotland right down to Lands End. Here is a link to the GAGB website landowner database where these agreements are held. As you'll see there are 12 for the FC. That's pretty good to my mind! In this case they've decided that increased traffic brought about by these caches in this particular area would be detrimental to the woodland. Fair enough, they own or manage it! 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 February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I'm writing this only 10 minutes after reading a rejection email so I will try my hardest to be objective but I've had a 6 mile series of 15 caches rejected by the forester on account of it creating new formal trails. I took this to mean new routes but he explains he means new footfall, new people, and this would involve a higher duty of care - even though I was sticking entirely to existing easy-to-use roads and paths. It seems as though they don't want people to use their woods, or am I missing something? Gutted. Try to work with him to make a trail you're both happy with instead of complaining on here - the FC have been known to read these forums. Presumably your original trail's only in the planning stages so far, as the locations hadn't received permission yet? Quote Link to comment
+ysdevil Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Try to work with him to make a trail you're both happy with instead of complaining on here - the FC have been known to read these forums. I'm glad the FC reads these forums, because I also have just had a series of caches turned down in FC land in Northamptonshire. I've tried to work with the FC, writing back and pointing out that the caches are on public pathways and offering to change anything that may help, but I haven't even received a reply. They say it's because it's a leasehold wood and shooting rights have been granted. I'm not sure I see the problem, leasehold woods I understand could be difficult, but surely I could ask the real landowner if the FC have a problem and I can't for the life of me see the problem with shooting rights, I mean we're walking through anyway, right? I'm trying hard to see the problems with selling off FC land. If you're rich you can buy the woods and do what you want. If you're rich now, you can buy the shooting rights and do what you want. Either way we get to walk through on public footpaths. Vive la difference! Quote Link to comment
+Aggrajag Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 Try to work with him to make a trail you're both happy with instead of complaining on here - the FC have been known to read these forums. Presumably your original trail's only in the planning stages so far, as the locations hadn't received permission yet? I wasn't particularly complaining; I was merely voicing my incredulity. The area I was hoping to use is well known for horse riders, mountain bikers and mountaineers as well as walkers, runners and dog-walkers. There are even large-scale running events staged there. As all of my caches would have been within 5 feet of the roads and paths so I can't fathom how there would be an increased duty of care. However Graculus makes a good point - it's their woods, they can do what they want. I also realise they don't need increased traffic as it's no benefit to them, it brings no income and just creates work and risk. Quote Link to comment
+ysdevil Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 However Graculus makes a good point - it's their woods, they can do what they want. No they're not, they're our woods, or so their campaign to keep the woods under FC ownership says. Ironically, in the middle of the woods that I was turned down permission for is a poster saying "save our forests". I'm starting to wonder who "our" is. Quote Link to comment
+The Blorenges Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 To the OP, Have you tried scaling down your plan? How about asking them if they would accept just 3 caches along the main route for 6 months, subject to review by you and them together after that time? If they could accept that as a "trial" then you went back with them after 6 months to show them that (hopefully!) no damaged had occurred perhaps they would then be willing to accept geocaching as a hobby they can accommodate. MrsB Quote Link to comment
+Morton Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I wasn't particularly complaining; I was merely voicing my incredulity. The area I was hoping to use is well known for horse riders, mountain bikers and mountaineers as well as walkers, runners and dog-walkers. There are even large-scale running events staged there. As all of my caches would have been within 5 feet of the roads and paths so I can't fathom how there would be an increased duty of care. I would guess they're drawing an analogy to one of their own waymarked trails - the ones with the coloured arrows. Quite rightly, they take a lot more care about those trails than they do with the rest of their paths and roads. For example, if they need to close part of a waymarked trail for forestry operations, they'll put a sign to that effect in the car park and maybe even set up a diversion. I can well imagine they also feel they have more of a duty of care regarding the waymarked trails. After all, the whole point of them is to help people get into the forest without having to think so much about navigation. There's a difference between saying "go anywhere you like" and saying "we think you should go this way" - we can all argue about taking responsibility for your own actions and so forth, but there's really no arguing that it *is* different. The reason I'm saying all this is that it might help get to the bottom of their concerns, and find a solution which works for you both. For example, perhaps you could move some of the caches in a way which means the geocacher has to plan their own route and make decisions about which way to go. Possibly, that would be enough to take it out of their "trail" bucket and put it back in the "general access" bucket. Or possibly it wouldn't, but it can't hurt to ask how you could change things to make it more acceptable to then. Cheers Richard Quote Link to comment
+hawkeye81 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 You wait until it's privatised! It's been scrapped (or at least it has for now!) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12428814 Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 They say it's because it's a leasehold wood and shooting rights have been granted. I'm not sure I see the problem, leasehold woods I understand could be difficult, but surely I could ask the real landowner if the FC have a problem and I can't for the life of me see the problem with shooting rights, I mean we're walking through anyway, right? The same issue applies with the National Trust and properties they lease out, they also are not in a position to grant outright permission to place caches on those leased properties. The Leaseholder has a say in what happens, under the contract they have with the Landowner. Please remember even though a large part of FC Property is CRoW act 200-Open Access Land, there is no Legal Right to take part in Geocaching on that land, unlike other listed activities. You state shooting rights have been also been assigned, there again there are separate legal issues, and also H&S issues. And before anyone says anything, I've known cachers ignore closed signs in FC areas, to go and get a find. The reason for the closure being forestry operations, so the area being out of bounds for all non employee's/contractors. Deci Quote Link to comment
+Geocass&Andy750x Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Just to add a flip side, The Forestry Commission gave me permission to lay a circular route around a woods near me. The ranger who dealt with my request was very nice and wished me luck with laying the trail. I told them I would not hide the caches more than a few meters off of the path as I didn't want to do any damage to anything, just wanted to cachers to enjoy the lovely walk and beautiful woods. This is also a woodland where they breed Pheasants for shooting (So I guess a wood that's used for shooting doesn't necessarily mean that permission will be rejected) There has however been one cacher out on my trail who experienced a lot of bad language from a shooter who was topping up animal feed. He explained to the shooter what he was doing and I think the guy didn't understand or thought he may be taking the mickey and got a bit aggressive with him telling him "If any of your lot come here on Saturday they'll get ******* shot!" Ooh-er! I wonder how many innocent members of the public have been shot on Saturdays by simply following the footpath there!!! Quote Link to comment
+Unobtainium Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Just to add a flip side, The Forestry Commission gave me permission to lay a circular route around a woods near me. The ranger who dealt with my request was very nice and wished me luck with laying the trail. I told them I would not hide the caches more than a few meters off of the path as I didn't want to do any damage to anything, just wanted to cachers to enjoy the lovely walk and beautiful woods. This is also a woodland where they breed Pheasants for shooting (So I guess a wood that's used for shooting doesn't necessarily mean that permission will be rejected) I am very good friends with Luke Everitt who is responsible for the FC Thames Chase Community Forest and I know he is also VERY pro caching. I suspect that different FC managers will take differing views of our sport and that the root of the problem is that you're not really dealing with the FC as an entity but with individuals. I hope that the FC retain control of the it's sites as the improvement I've seen in facilities is truly fantastic however I'm not holding my breathe on today's news of the delay. Quote Link to comment
+ysdevil Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I am very good friends with Luke Everitt who is responsible for the FC Thames Chase Community Forest and I know he is also VERY pro caching. I suspect that different FC managers will take differing views of our sport and that the root of the problem is that you're not really dealing with the FC as an entity but with individuals. That's the case in my situation. Apparently it's down to the single ranger who deals with that woodland.... and won't answer my emails, which is annoying. Quote Link to comment
+reddeeps Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I have had only positive contacts with the FC offices. I have several caches on FC land, both their own land and land owned by someone else which FC then manages. I also had a lot of contact in setting up the area permission, which was a slow process, but at all stages the FC where helpful and kept me upto date. Could you not arrange to meet the forrestor, and show him exactly what a cache is and how you intend hiding them. Give him info about exactyl how many people woudl visit, showing him examples of other FC caches and also the footfall to caches close by. In my case, my caches on average only get one visit every 3 weeks. Quote Link to comment
+Mark+Karen Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 "If any of your lot come here on Saturday they'll get ******* shot!" I know he was being flippant, but threatening serious injury or death is a serious matter. Quote Link to comment
+mcwomble Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 "If any of your lot come here on Saturday they'll get ******* shot!" I know he was being flippant, but threatening serious injury or death is a serious matter. I was once caught in a shower of shot pellets whilst doing GC1JC7D Miss-tree on Blind Lane. I suspect a farmer shooting pigeons or something but what goes up must come down - it was like being in a mini hail storm! Quote Link to comment
+Unobtainium Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I was once caught in a shower of shot pellets whilst doing GC1JC7D Miss-tree on Blind Lane. I suspect a farmer shooting pigeons or something but what goes up must come down - it was like being in a mini hail storm! Are you sure it wasn't Womble season? It could have been worse (Sorry PM's only ) 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.