Ministry of Defence - Change to geocaching policy

[+Dartmoor Dave]

 

I have cached on and off MOD land for years, indeed I am an employee!

 

I think the DIO may have some misconceptions - I don't know of Mr Brooks but he may have come from a different area of the old Defence Estates organisation after the most recent reorganisation

 

1. Geocaches are identifed as such and left in an exact (well, within 20 feet or so) position which the MOD has access to. There is absolutely no danger of them being mistaken for anything else. The land manager could easily request a mapped listing of geocaches, decriptions even photos for his security staff who could also be present when they are placed.

2. Geocachers can easily respect super-sensitive areas - all they need is to be told. Those areas should be off limits to the general public anyway

3. If there is a a real danger of unexploded munitions there should be NO public access to the area anyway.Saying you can come in but don't touch anything is a total cop out IMHO. MOD knows which areas are live firing areas - the rest of pretty safe, the worst you might find is an unexploded thunderflash or smoke grenade - far worse is sold openly in November to the yobs around my house.

4. On my local ranges I suspect the land manager has far more issues with dog mess and litter plus burned out BBQs than geocaches - they may be regarded as 'litter' by some, but it is 'maintained litter' and carefully placed with the owner's knowledge.

5. If DIO is adamant can we not request a pilot programme in a less sensitive area and see how that goes?

6. A range of well-intentioned, motivated, centrally coordinated and navigationally aware people going around MOD land should be recruited to help DIO in its land management role. I would be happy to assist in reporting some of the reprobates I see (with photos times and places!!!)

Security in iteself is not enough - JSP440 (the bible) requires judgement in its application and not just blanket bans as they actually can be more dangerous as they engender a fasle sense of security

 

Wow, the voice of reason. What a wonderfully well argued post this is and what a shame this sort of reasoned argument was not presented by GAGB. Please do get involved with the negotiations and bring some sense to this mess!

[+Puzbie]

 

I have cached on and off MOD land for years, indeed I am an employee!

 

I think the DIO may have some misconceptions - I don't know of Mr Brooks but he may have come from a different area of the old Defence Estates organisation after the most recent reorganisation

 

1. Geocaches are identifed as such and left in an exact (well, within 20 feet or so) position which the MOD has access to. There is absolutely no danger of them being mistaken for anything else. The land manager could easily request a mapped listing of geocaches, decriptions even photos for his security staff who could also be present when they are placed.

2. Geocachers can easily respect super-sensitive areas - all they need is to be told. Those areas should be off limits to the general public anyway

3. If there is a a real danger of unexploded munitions there should be NO public access to the area anyway.Saying you can come in but don't touch anything is a total cop out IMHO. MOD knows which areas are live firing areas - the rest of pretty safe, the worst you might find is an unexploded thunderflash or smoke grenade - far worse is sold openly in November to the yobs around my house.

4. On my local ranges I suspect the land manager has far more issues with dog mess and litter plus burned out BBQs than geocaches - they may be regarded as 'litter' by some, but it is 'maintained litter' and carefully placed with the owner's knowledge.

5. If DIO is adamant can we not request a pilot programme in a less sensitive area and see how that goes?

6. A range of well-intentioned, motivated, centrally coordinated and navigationally aware people going around MOD land should be recruited to help DIO in its land management role. I would be happy to assist in reporting some of the reprobates I see (with photos times and places!!!)

Security in iteself is not enough - JSP440 (the bible) requires judgement in its application and not just blanket bans as they actually can be more dangerous as they engender a fasle sense of security

 

Wow, the voice of reason. What a wonderfully well argued post this is and what a shame this sort of reasoned argument was not presented by GAGB. Please do get involved with the negotiations and bring some sense to this mess!

 

Hear! Hear!