New Forest Caches

[Team Tate]

My Father is a New Forest Ranger & I have just been informed that there is a plan to lift any caches that are on New Forest land without permission. Being a cacher himself, he is actually trying to fight our cause but as far as I know they are still planning to lift caches. I will update with more information when I can speak to him again & will post to keep everyone updated and if & when anything is likely to happen with regards to this.

 

Sarah

 

Team Tate

 

Remember - if it's moving, it's not dead...

[+penguinhunters]

Sarah

 

As one of many teams who have caches in New Forest we will be certainly interested to know the outcome of this news.

 

Cheers

 

Steve

[Team Tate]

Update on the previous info that I posted.

The situation is that if anyone is planning to place a cache in the New Forest then they need to obtain permission from the Forestry Commission prior to placing the cache.

What actually has happened is that a cache was placed & the owner then contacted the FC to let them know, and because permission hadn't been sought first, they came onto the web-site & armed with the co-ordinates went out & lifted the cache. They then proceeded to have the cache archived from this site.

To me, that then means that they would also have the means to be aware of the other unauthorised caches in the Forest and hence there wouldn't be anything to stop them lifting them. My Father (a Ranger) does not know if this is going to happen yet, but the FC have the means and the right as it is Government land

 

So the moral is that at present, anyone planning to place a cache in the Forest MUST seek permission first!

But hopefully in the future, as with other land owners, we may be able to get blanket permission. T&J over to you!!!!

 

Sarah

 

Team Tate

 

Remember - if it's moving, it's not dead...

[+Gary & Jane]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team Tate:

My Father is a New Forest Ranger & I have just been informed that there is a plan to lift any caches that are on New Forest land without permission.

---

Within the last couple of weeks we've noticed a higher than normal rate of not found logs coming in for the New Forest caches. Some of them have been confirmed as missing. Can anyone confirm if they are being actively removed or if this is just a case of bad luck?

 

Gary & Jane

[+Hi-Tek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary & Jane:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team Tate:

My Father is a New Forest Ranger & I have just been informed that there is a plan to lift any caches that are on New Forest land without permission.

---

Within the last couple of weeks we've noticed a higher than normal rate of not found logs coming in for the New Forest caches. Some of them have been confirmed as missing. Can anyone confirm if they are being actively removed or if this is just a case of bad luck?

 

Gary & Jane

---

 

All I can confirm is that of 3 'Not Founds' I had today, 2 were in the New Forest and the other one was at Milford-on-Sea.

 

If 'they' are going to lift caches then I think we'll be giving the NF a miss for quite some considerable time. After today I've seen enough horses, heather, ferns and gorse to last me quite a long long time .

 

"Fear is temporary, regret is permanent!"

 

motley. adj. varied in appearance or character.

crew. n. group of people.

[+Flackadder]

Rightly or wrongly I think that the FC should at least let whoever owns the cache know if they have removed it. As, if they knew who the cache belonged to then removed it and not informed.......maybe thats stealing?? Who knows!! The other argument will of course be 'should of asked permission before placing cache etc.....'.

 

We need to get the 'where we can and where we can't' and the 'what we can and what we can't' thing sorted. Or at least get this sort of thing in motion!

 

Hmm!!! Just read what I have written and wonder what I mean:-)

 

Bob....

http://www.bobh.co.uk

'Life, it's a game with one serious bit - geocaching!'

[+paul.blitz]

quote:

---

We need to get the 'where we can and where we can't' and the 'what we can and what we can't' thing sorted. Or at least get this sort of thing in motion!

---

 

The answer to the first one is simple: (legally) you should only place a cache if you have the permission of the landowner. The only major landowner so far to give any form of "blanket permission" is Hants CC.

 

However, I'm sure the new GAGB team, once elected, will be continuing to make contacts with the aim of gaining further permissions.

 

Paul

 

Another proud member of the GAGB!

[Dr Crippen]

An excellent example of "If it aint broke, don't fix it"

 

99% of caches placed here in the UK have been placed without the landowner's permission..........

 

Nuff said.

 

Where's the boat go from..??

[+Kouros]

Surely it would just be a common courtesy to get the land owners permission, even if the mjority of the time they're never going to know the cache would be there?

 

After all, even if a public right of way, you're using their land.

 

I must admit that my first two caches were hidden without permission (though now covered by the HCC acceptance), and sometimes it is impossible to know who to contact in that regard.

 

But if there is a way to play by the book (especially if the authorities are willing to be very welcoming when you do) then we should? If the FC say no when asking permission, then no harm is done - if you place a good cache, with good items, and a good location, and the FC remove it, all your hard work would be for nowt.

 

You never know, they might just let you place it.

 

------

"There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

[+The Badgers]

Hi all,

This is our first post to a Forum so forgive any glaring errors. Thanks to Ian T for letting us know all about this thread.

 

Being relatively new to caching, it was with great excitment that we placed our first cache,"It's this Sway" on 29/8/03 whilst on hols in the New Forest. It was a large ammo box stuffed with great goodies (even though I say it myself), covered with the Geo cache sticker and Contents are Harmless written on the box.

 

For about a fortnight it was going great, with plenty of visits and good comments including attracting a couple of TB's.

 

When we next visited it, to our massive disappointment, the hiding hole was gaping open and covering logs strewn all around the area. It seems that, unfortunately, ours is one of those gone missing in the NF. We searched intensively twice over that weekend but not a thing remained and in the end have had to disable the cache.

 

We did wonder if it was kids who had found the cache and gone off with it (our cache site is within walking distance of a camp site) or was it New Forest Rangers who removed it.

 

We note since that there are other caches in that area that have also disappeared.

 

Maybe we should have researched more thoroughly into where we are allowed to place a cache and getting permissions etc, but it never occured to us - call it inexperience!!

 

It would be good to know what has happened and if anyone can shed any light on this, please let us know.

 

If the Forest Rangers have taken it, can we claim it back? At least get back the TB which was in there? Anyone know more??????

 

Regards, The Badgers

[Team Tate]

Since I originally posted this back in March, my Dad has now retired from being a Ranger. He thinks that he knows which Ranger was against the caches & was a bit of a 'jobs-worth' type and who was keen to lift any unauthorised caches. I don't know if he is active now & that is why the caches are going missing, but I don't think that he would think to contact anyone, just wanted to get rid of the 'offending' items.

Can't find the thread at the mo, but will have a good look as there is a contact name which we found at the FC for obtaining permission to place caches on NF land.

Sarah xx

 

Team Tate

 

Remember - if it's moving, it's not dead...

[+Paul G0TLG]

I looked for Little Portugal and Little Canada this morning, and didn't find either. LP may have been my fault, but I'm sure I was looking in the right place for LC. The GPS was spot on, it fitted the clue, and there was an obvious cache hiding place...which was empty!

 

Paul

 

A member of the Geocaching Association of Great Britain

[+NattyBooshka]

I'm sure that if the FC in the New Forest were asked permission they would probably have said yes. They are very aware of a lot of letterboxes in the area. However, now that they have found unauthorized caches, they are going to take a very dim view of us guys. I heard a rumour that they had concerns over geocaching, despite letterboxing being allowed since 1989. I think we need to be seen as responsible by asking permission and placing good caches there.

 

On the legal point... I think they could argue that it's their land and the cache was littering it, or that the cache can be removed and held as lost property would be. Has whoever owned these tried contacting the FC?

 

Proud to support the GAGB

[+Hi-Tek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul G0TLG:

I looked for Little Portugal and Little Canada this morning, and didn't find either. LP may have been my fault, but I'm sure I was looking in the right place for LC. The GPS was spot on, it fitted the clue, and there was an obvious cache hiding place...which was empty!

 

Paul

 

A member of the Geocaching Association of Great Britain

---

 

Thanks for the info Paul. Those two caches were on my yesterdays 'to do' list. I'm glad I ran out of time and didn't attempt them. 5 'Not Founds' in 1 day would probably have led to me making use of the Wilverley Oak Gibbet Tree .

 

"Fear is temporary, regret is permanent!"

 

motley. adj. varied in appearance or character.

crew. n. group of people.

[+Flackadder]

quote:

---

Originally posted by NattyBooshka:

 

On the legal point... I think they could argue that it's their land and the cache was littering it, or that the cache can be removed and held as lost property would be. Has whoever owned these tried contacting the FC?

 

Proud to support the GAGB

---

 

Littering or not it would still be stealing in my view. Two wrongs though do not make it right. (Us placing and FC taking). If that is what is happening?

 

Some of the reasons that we do not ask permission 'may' be along the lines of:

 

1) Scared to ask.

2) Being told "no".

3) The timescale involved.

4) Who exactly to ask anyway.

5) To lazy.

6) Think they won't mind anyway.

 

I have often thought of asking the 'Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust' thier feeling on the subject, but have not. Possibly fearful of them asking what 'geocaching' is, explaining all of that then being told 'no'!

 

It may be an idea to be armed with some sort of printout that could be handed to any likely landowner. One that would outline all the positive things about our sport.

 

This is just my view guys.

 

Bob....

http://www.bobh.co.uk

'Life, it's a game with one serious bit - geocaching!'

[+The Badgers]

Originally posted by golddust1000:

 

Some of the reasons that we do not ask permission 'may' be along the lines of:

 

1) Scared to ask.

2) Being told "no".

3) The timescale involved.

4) Who exactly to ask anyway.

5) To lazy.

6) Think they won't mind anyway.

 

It may be an idea to be armed with some sort of printout that could be handed to any likely landowner. One that would outline all the positive things about our sport.

 

 

Yes, I agree with your reasons why people do not ask permission, and maybe we are a bit naive but it didn't occur to us to ask in the first place.

 

It would really take some of the fun out of placing a cache if we had to write and ask permission each time. Having said this, if we knew that the Forestry Commission required that, then we would do it.

 

Also, as you say, it would be good to have some sort of print-out giving the positive points of geo-caching as it is difficult to explain all about it, especially to a landowner who may be negative about the idea.

 

We were all set to place another cache in the Forest but think we'll leave it for now to see what transpires.

 

Derek and Jan

 

"You are never lost, you are always somewhere"

[+Wilkinsons]

Dear All

 

Been out tonight to check all three of our NF caches, Little Canada, Little Portugal and Be Prepared, all three have gone, ?trashed or been lifted, by the mysterious Ranger or others! Would like to know if there is any possibility of getting items back and if the person responsible is reading this to let them know one ofthe more positive benefits of undertaking some of the NF caches is the cache in trash out idea on all of the cache sites. It is quite amazing the amount of litter that one can remove from NF sites both remote and not so.

[+Paul G0TLG]

Shame - although it does mean I'm not such a rubbish geocacher as I'd thought!

 

Seriously...sorry to hear that, Wilkinsons...these were locations that deserved to have more attention drawn to them.

 

Just a thought - whoever is lifting these must be working quite hard, although the multi "Be Prepared" could be solved by local knowledge without visiting the start co-ords, it still took some doing.

 

Paul

 

A member of the Geocaching Association of Great Britain

[Team Tate]

Something to consider - have the FC got the right to remove unauthorised caches as permission hasn't been sort to place them, which any land owner can do?

I may have the name of the possible Ranger that could be doing this as he has removed one cache before, but at present, I personally am not in the position to talk to anyone at Queens House to find out the situation - we don't want to rock the boat or cause any problems and we do need to tread very carefully with this one as I don't want any false accusations flying around until we can find out what is actually happening with these caches.

We have no proof at present about what is happening to these caches and who is removing them, but hopefully things may come to light in the future. It may not even be the FC at this present time. To date I only know of one definite cache that has been removed by the FC but having no links now with them am not able to verify any more information.

 

Team Tate

 

Remember - if it's moving, it's not dead...

[Team Tate]

Just some infomation - I have looked at the New Forest caches & have found that the most of them have gone missing - verified by the cache owners. So a good idea to check before you go - will be checking ours within the next couple of days. These caches include multis so some care has been taken to remove these. Some even included Travel Bugs which is a real shame.

Not sure where we should go from here - perhaps we should refrain from placing caches in the NF at present until the situation has been sorted out.

 

Team Tate

 

Remember - if it's moving, it's not dead...

[+Omally]

NIMBY?

 

Of course, it may not even be a NF Ranger: could be someone who simply lives in the area and regards the whole forest as his/her private garden and regards the presence of anyone who likes to have fun there as something not to be tolerated. Kind of an unofficial, self-appointed warden, I suppose. I know for a fact that people like this do actually exist (not necessarily in the New Forest: please don't think I'm saying anyone who lives there is a wrongun, 'cos that's not what I mean at all).

I suppose as not all humans are good people, we just gotta put up with folks like this.

 

All the more reason for not pointing fingers in any direction whatsoever, as it really could be anyone.

 

Until someone has the guts to stand up and say "it was me" then nothing can be done (and I mean along the lines of being nice about it and opening a discussion on the benefits of geocaching,not a public hanging! ), until then I guess we oughta just leave the Forest be and also let be whichever narrow-minded trasher who lives there.

 

 

Omally

Member of the GAGB

[+Bill D (wwh)]

I've just been looking at the pages for caches in the NF in the south west corner of Hampshire, centred around 'Travis in the New Forest'. The only one I didn't look at was After Dark, as it's members only.

 

Of the 19 physical caches I looked at, six are missing and three have Not Founds as their latest logs.

 

None of the others have logs since September 7th, which is prior to when some at least seem to have disappeared.

 

Bill

 

-------------------------------

"Ah, take the Cache and let the Credit go..."

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, trans. Edward Fitzgerald

[+Bill D (wwh)]

For anyone who's interested, these are the caches, in no particular order:

 

Missing:

It's this Sway

Wilverley Oak II

Castleman's Corkscrew Cache

Little Portugal

Little Canada

Be Prepared

 

Not Found as last log:

Royalty Hunters

Down to the Wood

No Tree Cover S

 

No logs since Sep 7:

Addernough

Travis in the New Forest

Green For(d) Go

Holly Hole

Noah's Ark

No Tree Cover W

No Tree Cover N

No Tree Cover X

No Tree Cover E

They Flew from the Forest

 

Bill

 

-------------------------------

"Ah, take the Cache and let the Credit go..."

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, trans. Edward Fitzgerald

[+NattyBooshka]

I feel we need to speak to the FC before it's too late.

 

As previously stated there are lots of letterboxes hidden in the NF, with FC knowledge and approval. I doubt very much we have a letterboxer removing caches as the two games can co-exsit and I know of a couple of teams that do both. To the passerby all lunchboxes are invisible, or should be, so I don't think that they would remove ours and not the letterboxes. Some letterboes do go AWOL, so it could just be "natural wastage," but it would be very strange if all the caches were missing. Maybe someone in the area could check the boxes that have no recent logs. It does seem to me on the face value of this thread that they have most probably been removed by rangers. If we talk to the FC we have a chance of being approved of... if they see us as placing without permission, then the game will not survive in the forest.

 

Maybe we could get together with the letterboxing community and have the FC see us as a varient on that game? Maybe we can place some letterbox hybrids out there, listed as letterboxes and also listed on here. I can't see any existing letterboxes getting listed on here, as their owners would most likely not want to publish their co-ordianates on here. Possibly though, a treasureless cache or two, with stamps instead of swap items could work well for the image of GC with the FC.

 

Just a thought, but I feel we can turn the situation around with some responsible cahces in the forest.

 

Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some just grate

[+Lizzzzeeeee]

I heard a report on the local news a couple of days ago that said the New Forest were closing a large number of their car parks for the winter, result was lots of people up in arms about the loss of access to "their" forest.

 

Maybe it's worth trying to get contact through the New Forest District Council, maybe building on the links with Hampshire County Council, although there may be animosity between County and District Councils as there sometimes can be???

 

Lizzzzzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

Why is it that when you're out for a walk carrying a map everyone asks if you're lost?

[+Grynneman]

I have a bad feeling about this.

I received an email (around the beginning of September)for the irresponsible placing of a cache, from a fellow geocacher.

 

"I wonder if you realise that your cache sited in Roydon Wood is most definatley in private grounds. WIthout seeking the owners permission, should it still be there"

 

I emailed him back, to confirm that he was talking about Addernough, and whether he had been approached by the owners....

 

"Yes I am referring to Addernough, There are a number of notices around the barbed wire fence, the site is designated as SSSI. I was not approached by the owners, as I would not attempt to seek the cache. I do know the area

well & hence why I am pointing it out to your good self. The woods, as you, undoubtedly know, are full of Bluebells & Bluebells are, in fact a protected species, and do not tolerate being walked upon. It is, I would suggest, not

in the best interests of Geocaching, to be found around the site. Although the Wood is bounded by The New Forest,it is not part of the land Managed by the Commission."

 

Unless the area has dramatically changed since I last placed the cache, the woods are fenced off, but the cache is close to an unfettered footpath running through the middle of the woods, nowhere near the designated sanctuary areas on the map (this is on the owners website).

I wasn't entirely sure about private propery aspect, so checked and found it was owned by the Hampshire & Isle of Wight wildlife trust.

I emailed them, and asked for permission for the continuing existence of the cache, and if not I would remove the cache asap.

I added links to the cache page, as well as HCC cache meeting.

I received an email saying that it would be forwarded on to the warden responsible. Since then, nothing.

 

I did not carry on the correspondence with the GC member, as I didn't see the point in trying to continue a dialogue with somebody who wouldn't actually check the location, and assumed that myself (and other cachers) were not aware of bluebells' protected status.

 

So the question to be asked is, in requesting permission, have I let the cat out of the bag?

[+NattyBooshka]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grynneman (L & S):

So the question to be asked is, in requesting permission, have I let the cat out of the bag?

---

From what I know, the cat wasn't actually in the bag, certainly not for a while.

 

I too have a very bad feeling, I guess we need to talk to a few organizations before we are banned from not only the New Forest, but all FC land

 

Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some just grate

[+Eckington]

Hi Guys,

 

Just a thought, and I do not want to be considered an interfering old moderator, but it strikes me this is a vital issue for cachers in the South and South East.

 

Yet I find no trace of the discussion on the GAGB board. Is it not precisely this type of issue that the GAGB could see as part of its remit?

 

I fully support your discussions here, and in no way want to curtail them, but why not utilise the skills of the, albeit small yet, GAGB committee to try and pursue this problem in a positive matter with the various authorities concerned.

 

As I said, just a suggestion......

 

Eckington

[+NattyBooshka]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eckington:

Just a thought, and I do not want to be considered an interfering old moderator, but it strikes me this is a vital issue for cachers in the South and South East.

---

I hadn't thought of the "old!" Just kidding! Seems this is currently a Sourthern thing, but it could become an issue for all of us

quote:

---

Yet I find no trace of the discussion on the GAGB board. Is it not precisely this type of issue that the GAGB could see as part of its remit?

 

I fully support your discussions here, and in no way want to curtail them, but why not utilise the skills of the, albeit small yet, GAGB committee to try and pursue this problem in a positive matter with the various authorities concerned.

 

As I said, just a suggestion......

---

And a good one at that! Why didn't I think of that? OK... no need to answer that guys!

 

Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some just grate

[Team Tate]

As the nominations for the CAGB are still currently running and I am standing as a candidate, I can't directly deal with this issue at present, but I sent a mail to T&J yesterday detailing the concerns and am awaiting a reply. So things are in hand!

 

Sarah xx

 

Team Tate

 

Remember - if it's moving, it's not dead...

[+Lassitude]

Oh dear. I sort of expected it would be only a matter of time before this sort of thing happened. Shame that the GAGB is not properly up and running as this sort of thing could/would fall into their remit to try to resolve.

 

Thanks

 

Chris

 

LASSITUDE- (noun) Tiredness and apathy: a state of weariness accompanied by listlessness or apathy[15th century. Via French from Latin lassitudo , from lassus 'weary'.]

[+Tim & June]

This situation is going to be difficult to resolve.

 

Some months ago we were in negotiation with Forest Enterprise (who oversee The Forester Commission, or so we are told) and were at the final stages of blanket approval on their land provided we stuck to the guidelines (very similar to HCC with a couple of minor additions). At the final hurdle the head honcho's quoted the UK forum (this thread) where some cachers were saying that alcohol food etc were okay in caches despite what the guidelines say (not quoted verbatim so please read the thread). Sorry to bring that up again ! The result was posted in this thread

 

Please read/re-read those threads carefully, a lot is explained.

 

This was partly the reason the GAGB was formed. If we could get cachers to agree sensible guidelines could we approach land owners ? . . .

 

We have tried to talk to the Forestry Commission in Lyndhurst, but they are not very helpful. I have heard of discussion (cannot find the pages on the web now) where the FC in the New Forest wanted to ban dog walkers, so I think there is little chance that we will get very far. Head office seems to be the only way to go.

 

In speaking to a member of the Verderers Court (peculiar to the NF) He said of the local FC as "Humpf! Tin Gods", wouldn't waste my time talking to them".

 

The problems caching faces in this sort of area are compounded by more recent posts where cachers still proclaim theat they do not want rules and guidelines.

 

To be fair, if you were a land-owner and somebody asked you, then you looked at the forums, what would you say ?

quote:

---

"Oh yes, I can see that you cannot follow your own guidelines, but that gives me confidence that you will follow our ours, so go ahead !"

---

 

I don't think so !

 

Anyway, for the time being, I guess the only way to put a cache in the New Forest is to make it "members only" until the situation is resolved. Alternatively, make it a big and very difficult multi so it takes all day to do, cachers might do it, but I doubt if a Ranger would spend all day doing it.

 

Tim & June (Winchester)

 

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

[+Eckington]

Hi Guys,

 

I have just recieved this mailing from Warwick Bear:

 

"If someone calls the Rangers Team on 023 8028 3141 they will explain why the New Forest caches have beenb lifted."

 

....respectfully suggest you decide amongst yourselves who should do it and find out!

 

Eckington

[+Tim & June]

Thanks Eckington, will do.

 

Tim & June (Winchester)

 

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

[Krazy Kats]

Not sure if anyone remembers, but a few months ago someone had put notes on some of the New Forest caches saying that they should not be there because it was Forestry Commission land. I remember thinking that I would wait and see whether the owners removed them before I went out to have a go at finding them. Unfortunately I can't remember who this was and can't find any mention of these notes on any caches now. Is it possible for them to have been removed? Hopefully all those owners with caches that had these notes on may be able to recollect the name. I would suggest that this may be the person we're talking about here.

[+stu_and_sarah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim & June:

Anyway, for the time being, I guess the only way to put a cache in the New Forest is to make it "members only" until the situation is resolved.

---

Surely the only way to place a cache in the New Forest is to ask for permission? If I'm reading the original message correctly, it's only those who didn't seek permission who have a problem. And that's fair enough from the land-owners point of view, and should be from ours too.

[+NattyBooshka]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stu & Sarah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim & June:

Anyway, for the time being, I guess the only way to put a cache in the New Forest is to make it "members only" until the situation is resolved.

---

Surely the only way to place a cache in the New Forest is to ask for permission? If I'm reading the original message correctly, it's only those who didn't seek permission who have a problem. And that's fair enough from the land-owners point of view, and should be from ours too.

---

 

This thread has been spilt, and is further updated on the GAGB forums.

 

My take is we cannot place a cache in the New Forest at this time, and that if we do, we'll be risking the game being dead as far as the forest, and other FC land is concerned. If I had a cache out there, I'd be removing it now and waiting to see if GAGB can negotiate a deal with the FC

 

Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some just grate

[+WalkDMC!]

It’s a real shame that the local FC isn’t taking more of an interest. Maybe, as they are a government quango it is an issue that could be raised with a local MP to be raised with the board? With the emphasis on “Cache in, trash out”, which I know we all follow, we all know how the area of the cache can be improved. Caches also help with the local tourist industry, with Cachers often staying in areas where there are top grade caches, this includes visitors from both the UK and world wide, a fact that cannot be ignored with this countries tourist industry still recovering from the foot and mouth outbreak last year.

 

To quote from the Forestry Commission’s own web site “More than 70 per cent of all adults have visited British forests in the last few years. They make around 350 million day trips from their homes to forests each year, in addition to visits by regular dog-walkers and by holiday-makers. Forests provide opportunities for walking, cycling, horse riding, orienteering, camping, caravanning, fishing, birdwatching and a whole host of other activities enjoyed by people of all ages.

The Forestry Commission welcomes access to the forests it manages and full details can be found by following the links in the left menu to 'recreation' and 'wild woods'.”

 

To persecute a whole community because of the mistakes of a few cannot be condoned! And to be honest it is also very short sighted by the local FC team. As Tim & June are taking up the banner on this one, I would suggest that we wait, but if they do hit a brick wall I would also suggest that we petition the board of the FC (details of which can be foundhere). But to do this we would need to be very specific about what we are trying to achieve, possibly adding additional guidelines specifically for Forestry Commission Land, working with the Forestry Commission to draw these up? –is something that could also be co-ordinated by T&J / GAGB?

 

…I’ll put my soapbox away now…

 

Dean(&Abi)

 

Eagles may fly high, but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines…

[+NattyBooshka]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dean&Abi:

To persecute a whole community because of the mistakes of a few cannot be condoned! And to be honest it is also very short sighted by the local FC team. As Tim & June are taking up the banner on this one, I would suggest that we wait, but if they do hit a brick wall I would also suggest that we petition the board of the FC (details of which can be foundhttp://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/hcou-4u4hzq). But to do this we would need to be very specific about what we are trying to achieve, possibly adding additional guidelines specifically for Forestry Commission Land, working with the Forestry Commission to draw these up? –is something that could also be co-ordinated by T&J / GAGB?

---

I don't feel that we are being persicuted here. Letterboxing, from the FC point of view, is almost the same game. There were letterboxes in the NF before they agreed guidelines in 89. However, the guidelines they drew up, and conform to, state that there can be no publicity of the boxes. We'd have a problem there in that we have this website. Even a members-only cache would be pretty public as far as they're concerned I'm sure. I don't know if this is a sticking point, but I could well see that it could be. If there are still a handful of caches in the forest, I can see how they would see them being publicised would generate a lot of traffic to a very small area of woods. No matter how carefully we tread, we do have an impact. Maybe the FC envisage a stream of people all hitting the same few caches every day? If we had hundreds of caches this wouldn't be an issue. I agree we need to push CITO when we talk to any landowners, but maybe we also need to tell them how often a cache is visited, on average. After the first couple of weeks of a cache's life, traffic to it slows as the local cachers have bagged it. Maybe we need to discuss that with the FC?

 

On a side issue, this discussion has, effectivly, admitted that we do not have lanowner permission to place a cache in the NF. Does this mean that any caches submitted today would not be approved? Personally, as stated, I would suggest that nobody places a cache until we have negotiated a deal, but I wonder if GC.com now have an official view on this?

 

Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some just grate

[+Eckington]

quote:

---

On a side issue, this discussion has, effectivly, admitted that we do not have lanowner permission to place a cache in the NF. Does this mean that any caches submitted today would not be approved? Personally, as stated, I would suggest that nobody places a cache until we have negotiated a deal, but I wonder if GC.com now have an official view on this?

 

---

 

Hi Guys,

 

As an approveer I have, as has been said before, to apply gc.com guidelines as I interpret them.

 

Before each cache is submitted for approval it is now a requirement that the layer ticks a box stating they have read the guidelines, and the site says only layers agreeing to the guidelines will have their caches approved.

 

The question of permission is clearly addressed in the guidelines.

 

We only have the evidence of the cache page when we approve a cache. We can check proximities; if the cache page has information on it that appears to go against the guidelines we can Hold the cache until a change has been made and then approve it, or we can wait a while and then archive the cache.

 

We have to accept that landowners permission has been granted (unless the cache page says something like "I put this here with no permission!" )

 

If I had, at this tiume, to approve a cache that stated...."deep in the New Forest".....I would think several times before approving it and seek assurance from the layer that permission had been granted.

 

Other than that..............

 

Eckington

[+NattyBooshka]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eckington:

quote:

---

On a side issue, this discussion has, effectivly, admitted that we do not have lanowner permission to place a cache in the NF. Does this mean that any caches submitted today would not be approved? Personally, as stated, I would suggest that nobody places a cache until we have negotiated a deal, but I wonder if GC.com now have an official view on this?

 

---

 

Hi Guys,

 

As an approveer I have, as has been said before, to apply gc.com guidelines as I interpret them.

 

Before each cache is submitted for approval it is now a requirement that the layer ticks a box stating they have read the guidelines, and the site says only layers agreeing to the guidelines will have their caches approved.

 

The question of permission is clearly addressed in the guidelines.

 

We only have the evidence of the cache page when we approve a cache. We can check proximities; if the cache page has information on it that appears to go against the guidelines we can Hold the cache until a change has been made and then approve it, or we can wait a while and then archive the cache.

 

We have to accept that landowners permission has been granted (unless the cache page says something like "I put this here with no permission!" )

 

If I had, at this tiume, to approve a cache that stated...."deep in the New Forest".....I would think several times before approving it and seek assurance from the layer that permission had been granted.

---

Thanks Eckington... just wanted to see if this kind of discussion meant a modification to the "interpretation." As I said it was a side issue, and I'm not planning to place a cache in the NF. I was just wondering if a disussion, possibly a rumour on here, about a landowner not allowing caches could affect a cache placed with landowner consent. Glad to see it doesn't!

 

Neil.

 

Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some just grate

[+WalkDMC!]

I understand what you mean by letterboxing, but what about the broader scope of all FC land not just the New Forest?

If there is a blanket ban this would be a disaster, the cascade to other organisations such as NT et al to use the FC decision as a president for their refusal to host any caches on their land.

There are two routes that I have been walking in the past few months, to scout for possible cache sites that are on FC land in Sussex.

How can such a misunderstanding arise? The spirit of the sport is to enjoy the environment around us, encourage others to explore, and to some degree publicise areas that we personally find interesting, as well in some small part aid to improve the area around the cache with the “cache in, trash out” message.

It would be a real shame for all parties involved for this not to be resolved, and I agree that the word “persecution” was not the right word, apologies for using it.

 

Eagles may fly high, but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines…

[+NattyBooshka]

Hi again,

 

I guess FC land is generally wild, with lots of deer and other animals roaming it. The local NT land to us is not... it's mainly farmed or gorse. Lyme Park has deer, but their range is limited and the entrances to that land are lockable. Letterboxing operates with FC approval under certain, strict, guidlines. One guidleine is that letterboxing has closed seasons... for the protection of said wildlife. If I placed a cache in such a location, I would follow this guidline and remove my cache before the periods set forth in the 'boxing guidleines. In letterboxing I wouldn't as I have never had need to... 'boxers do not place, hunt or remove caches for two months of the year.

 

I see the point about the FC decision being used by the NT and other such organizations, and it does alarm me. The NT though is pretty democratic, so we could argue our case with them. I think we need to take the HCC guidlines and approval and point at that with all other organizations out there. If we can use that one as a prescedent then I feel we can avoid another case of this nature... if we follow our own guidelines.

 

This all arose from the perception, whether fact or not, that we cannot follow our own guidelines. For that reason, I fear that the FC will not feel they can discuss new guidelines for us... what's the point if we won't stick to them?

 

At the presant time it looks as though the FC will remove all caches in the NF, so maybe the owners could do that first? I've not checked too much, but it would appear that they were not offline during the critical month for wildlife in the summer, and with another fast approaching I guess the FC have decided to do something about it.

 

I can see a situation where they may one day tolerate us, but any suggestions such as placing micro caches or long multi-caches will not help their current perception of us. I see an uphill, if not impossible, battle to have them agree to any guidelines with us.

 

This whole situation is sad, but we must learn from it, and think before we suggest breaking our own guidelines, even if it is tongue in cheek, on these forums. if we fail to learn from this, then I'm sure the possibility of NT et al following FC's lead will become a reality that none of us want.

 

Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some just grate

[+WalkDMC!]

Well said NattyBooshka!

Being a newbie to this, its sometimes inappropriate to comment, but from reading through the comments on this thread, it felt a little like we had finally arrived to find that the "shop" was closing down!

I think all of us appreciate the hard work that others do behind the scenes to aid the Geocaching cause. Many Thanks,

Dean(&Abi)

 

Eagles may fly high, but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines…

[+NattyBooshka]

Did we ever get an answer as to why the caches were lifted? I see we had a phone number, but I don't see anybody saying that they have spoken to these people.

 

Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some just grate

[+Tim & June]

quote:

---

Originally posted by NattyBooshka:

I see we had a phone number, but I don't see anybody saying that they have spoken to these people.

---

 

It turns out that Warwick Bear was just being helpful by providing the telephone number for Queens House. There is nobody there expecting a call or anything, so there was nothing gained.

 

Tim & June (Winchester)

 

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

[+NattyBooshka]

After much deliberation, I feel that I should post my further feelings on this issue here, and not on the GAGB site. I have decided this because of a couple of reasons:

 

1. This issue is relevant to all cachers, not just GAGB members.

2. Offence has been taken to my post on there last night

 

So, without putting this to anybody in respect of negotiations with NF/FC I wish to summerise my feelings on this issue for consideration by all NF cache owners/hunters and the wider community of cachers in the UK.

 

Micro-Caches: We have recently placed a micro-cache for the first time. We didn;t see the attraction of these until recently when we found one in Derbyshire. We took great care in selecting a location for this cache. We wanted to place it somewhere that it's impact would be minimal. By definition, a smaller object is harder to find. This means a more extensive search of the area by the finder is likely. This, in turn, means that if not placed with a lot of thought, the surrounding area will be trampled more than it would if a full size cache was placed. There has been at least one occasion where a cache that had been removed in the New Forest, we think by the FC, has been replaced by a micro. I believe that this is something that the owner should look at again, and re-consider this action... if not to avoid the wrath of the FC then to protect the surrounding area.

 

Closed Seasons: Whilest we have no agreement at this time with the FC to persue our game in the forest, others do. Those other passtimes have strict guidelines which, for one, prohibit the persuit of those passtimes during June and October. These times are important for the deer poulation of the forest, as well as other wildlife. I don't feel that any cacher wants to have a detrimental impact on the deer, but I have seen caches placed just before the closed seasons that other passtimes have. I'm not having a go at people who were unaware of these restrictions, but I would like to appeal to them to at the very least mark their caches as inactive now until the end of the month, and again for these two months next year. I, or indeed GC.com and GAGB, have no autority to enforce this, but if we ever get agreement from the FC to place caches, this is something that they will insist on. I also feel that this will be a major problem when it comes to any negotiations with them.

 

Protected Land: There has been instances of cachers walking through protected bog land in the forest. This is, to say the least, not the done thing. I feel that if a cache is placed near such land then instructions need to be given as to the exact route to take to the cache, so as to avoid these delicate areas. Again, I plead with relevant cache owners to do this. Infact, in the new forest as a whole this could be a good idea.

 

Negotiations: I don't see any way, either as individuals, a community or an assocciation, of us being able to have meaningful dialogue with the FC (or other body) with respect to approval whilst we are replacing caches that they have removed, or trying to hide what we do from them. I suggest that if we cannot fall into line and wait until we meet most of the expected guidelines we will not be able to gain approval. If people do such things, they will be replacing their caches on a regular basis, and none will ever be approved of, thus killing the game in the forest. I believe that us closing down our activities there and then trying to broker a deal would be a much more sensible step.

 

Virtuals: As stated by others elsewhere, this could be the future of our game in the forest. However, I feel that now is not the time to be "hiding" these as we don't want to antagonise the FC further. Also, in future we need to think about these as much as we do physical caches. It's not just a box being placed that is the issue here, it's the route to it, the sensitivity of the area, etc. We need to make any virtual caches accessible via path/road as they most likely will be, and make sure that the parking and instructions give a non-impact route to the virtual.

 

In closing, I think we all agree that we are currently held in a bad light as far as the FC are concerned. This will escalate, and could go beyond the boundaries of the NF and even the FC. We wouldn't benefit from a ban in the new forest, and neither would any future negotiations with others.

 

Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some just grate

[+Chris n Maria]

Maybe it is just me but....

 

It was quite obvious that T&J (or GAGB etc.) where having some discussions with the FC or some other body involved in the new forest.

 

Both parties would have known what was going on and hopefully they would have reached agrement on what to do. So why the excitment about existing caches/caching? Why not wait to find out what we should be doing rather than guess or get uppety about what has happened?

 

It seems to me that T&J where trying to move us on from where we currently are - not somewhere else.

 

What was the problem with waiting to find out the result of any negotiations? Where was the urgency?

 

Chris

 

If only life had an undo button....

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

[+NattyBooshka]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris n Maria:

... Why not wait to find out what we should be doing rather than guess or get uppety about what has happened?

 

It seems to me that T&J where trying to move us on from where we currently are - not somewhere else.

 

What was the problem with waiting to find out the result of any negotiations? Where was the urgency?

---

 

Well... lines like...

quote:

---

...nearly trod on a deer as he waded through the chest high bracken

---

.. taken from a log in the NF in June gave the matter some urgency as far as I, amongst others, was concerned. I see why the details of an ongoing negotiation may be best left off the forums, as they have been, but how could "no caching in June or October" have been a problem? People placing caches iin the forest need to be aware of this. Luckily the deer in question was not actually trodden on. The GAGB, FC, chairman, whoever need to make people aware of this issue, amongst others, and for us to be holding that information from them is wrong.

 

Also the advice seems to be to hide what we do so that it doesn't get in the way of the negotiations, which I was alarmed by. Other advice to place micros was worrying as they do have an impact, and with at best 15 ft of accuracy a film cannister is pretty hard to find. I feel, very strongly, that these issues need confronting. They are seperate to negotiations, issues we the cachers should be dealing with. These are not negotiable as far as the forest is concerned, all other groups abide by these rules.

 

We could wait until after committee elections and October are over. We would then have failed to address an issue that is very important.

 

I do, although I can see how people would think otherwise, think that T&J should be thanked for all of the things that they have done for us. However, on this issue I feel that we could do a lot better, and why wait to improve caching in the NF? I would say wait... if we stopped our activites. These issues will arise from time to time with other bodies, and we can all learn from what's happening in the NF. Maybe some of the points I and othes have made could be of use to a cacher somewhere else right now?!

 

Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some just grate

[The Land Ranger]

Nattybooshka,

 

Bit fond of sticking your oar in arn't you ?

 

For example in this thread you took it upon yourself to check with the police about the advisability of the HCC event.

 

quote:

---

Just thought I'd investigate further... rang Hanpshire Constabulary... advice is to avoid the area at night... the person I spoke to was alarmed that we plan to walk around in the dark on a night-cache! Don't know who's organising the night-cache, but hope that they are aware of the problems up there and precautions are in place.

---

 

and

 

quote:

---

but just wanted to make people aware that the HCC guidelines on geocaching and police advice differ at this particular location.

---

 

It seems that you think you can (in your few months caching) do better, therefore I reckon that you should put your money where your mouth is.

 

NATTYBOOSHKA FOR CHAIR

 

Hah !

 

Some people just grate.