Jump to content

Dangers Of Caching On Greenham Common


Recommended Posts

I have been in contact with a representative of West Berkshire Council who are responsible for managing the Greenham Common area. They have just become aware of a number of geocaches placed on the land they manage, none of which had permission for their placement.

 

Fortunately they are taking a positive approach to geocaching and I am working with them to work out an accord whereby at least some of the caches may remain. This will be the subject of another posting. However they have come up with a valid concern, particularly at this time of year. I quote from his e-mail:

 

One cache is located at the base of a gorse bush.This is not a good time of year to put your hand in the bottom of a gorse bush as they are favourite places for adders to shelter from the midday sun.  The bushes in this area are all regularly used for this - a hot metal tin may even attract adders!

 

So beware!!!

 

As it happens this particular cache is also close to a nightjar's nest and I've archived it at their request.

Edited by Lactodorum
Link to comment

And so soon after the 'adders' thread too. Break out all those bad puns again!!

 

Hmmn, does this look like the councils are starting to talk to each other, or has all the recent publicity prompted them to do a quick search?

 

<broken record impression>...and why don't the caches in question have permission? Was the "permission obtained" box checked on submission? I suspect it was...</broken record impression>...

Edited by CuplaKiwis
Link to comment

Fine, but what is really annoying is the huge number of dog walkers, bikers, kids playing and other such "interference" existing on Greenham Common and many other "open" areas. Do council employees stop them?

Edited by Birders
Link to comment

Hmmn, does this look like the councils are starting to talk to each other.......

 

I suspect taking a Reviewer/Moderator's thread off topic is a Capital Offence, but here we go.

 

The Councils DO talk together through a web-based forum and Geocaching has been raised on there. I've made an approach to many Councils for GAGB and have been told about a exchange of opinion, good and bad.

 

Apparently a couple of councils are now becoming anti-caching because of a few caches appearing in the wrong places. However, all the ones that I've actually spoken to so far are very supportive of the principle of geocaching and would just like to make sure that caches appear in the right places.

Link to comment

Another point.. the Nightjar nest. We are birdwatchers and are concerned for the welfare of our feathered friends. However, in the context of the Greenham cache, Nightjars are not protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside act so have no more rights of protection than, say, sparrows or robins. If a council is going to use that argument then they should either ensure that the area is cordoned off to all users and have all caches removed which are close to any bird nest.

 

I'm not trying to be awkward; just trying to counter arguments against our hobby. In two areas where we have done caches which have later been archived under these arguments, there is far greater disturbance through dogs, bikers, kids and wildlife (deer, foxes, etc) than would ever be caused by geocachers alone and this needs to be put to the authorities concerned in an effort to re-assure them.

Link to comment

It seems to me that from our point of view we are losing out in a game of double standards - if you are walking aimlessly with a dog it's OK, but if you are walking to a fixed point then geocaching is worth considering as a banned sport.

 

But, from their point of view, we are not following our own guidelines and we are not having the courtesy of asking the owner of the land for permission to play our game on their property. We might be guilty of double standards ourselves.

 

As our pastime gets more mainstream, then we will have to be more mainstream about the way we consider other peoples property and asking permission to place caches on it. Equally, some owners will be tolerant of us, and some will be intolerant. This will probably depend on their first experience of us.

 

We very much rely on goodwill, both from people on our side to go to efforts to gain agreements with landowners and from the landowners themselves. However goodwill is generally extended to those that deserve it and I'm starting to think that there are people in our community who are willing to 'risk it'.

Link to comment

<<we are not having the courtesy of asking the owner of the land for permission to play our game on their property. >>

 

So, had everyone we saw playing football at Greenham sought permssion? Do the picnickers seek permission... or the model car racers, kite flyers, etc? We've done most of those things and more on open land but never sought permission. Maybe the problem is that geocachers leave something there.... but the dog mess, litter and beer cans don't count?

 

Again, I'm not trying to be awkward and I am a wholly law-abiding citizen, but I don't see that our pastime is any more harmful than the others I mentioned.

Edited by Birders
Link to comment
(snip) Again, I'm not trying to be awkward and I am a wholly law-abiding citizen, but I don't see that our pastime is any more harmful than the others I mentioned.

You are missing the point, I think.

 

A cache that is on land without permission, has the same status as the beer cans and the dog poo.

 

If the caches mentioned OP had been placed with permission, then arguments about the protected status of Nightjars, or kite flying (or, whatever) would be relevant.

 

Without it, they aren't.

 

-Wlw.

Link to comment
As our pastime gets more mainstream, then we will have to be more mainstream about the way we consider other peoples property and asking permission to place caches on it.

Probably the most succinct and accurate statement I've heard about Geocaching for a while. And perhaps the heart of the problem also - anyone who has been Geocaching more than (say) 12 months or so probably still thinks of it as a slightly underground hobby, perhaps where we can place caches anywhere with no problems, as it's just a bit of fun. As it has become more mainstream, this is (unfortunately, I add) no longer appropriate, even if only through sheer weight of numbers (caches and cachers).

 

It, in my opinion, requires a shift in our way of thinking. This is now starting to happen, as is demonstrated by GAGB's (and lots of other's) inroads towards permission. While perhaps hard to swallow, it has become essential that our own guidelines are adhered to, so that geocaching will actually still be around in years to come.

 

As Geocaching enters its adolescent years, these growing pains are only going to become more prolific, but with common sense, good guidance, and perhaps a little luck, it will come through relatively unscathed.

Link to comment

I have to agree with Kitty Hawk and CuplaKiwis.

Sheer numbers involved greatly increases the risk of someone doing something stupid which will reflect badly on the rest of us - it is a different game from the one some of us innocently embarked upon. Better in some ways but sadly worse in others. :(

Link to comment

I was recently talking with a non geocacher about the permission problem and came up with this.

 

Speeding is considered as a Non victim offence by many due to the fact that most of the time the only person who gets affected is the driver committing the offence when he/she receives the fixed penalty notice. A cache placed without permission that go's sour when the land owner finds out is not a victimless incident. As it's not only the cache owner who is affected but the whole geocaching community as a whole. Due to the knock on affects on other areas that the landowner might have. Unfortunatly a large no of cache placers are still placing them without permission as they see it as a victimless thing.

 

Dave

Link to comment

the difference between us and the dog owners/picnic people is that we leave a tupperware box that the landowner can find/remove and ruin the hunt. they can't take your dog or with the picnic the worst is they can tell you to go away.

 

so yes it's unfair. especially with cito we are the best people to have. we improve and care for the ground we visit. in the main that is. you know who you are who don't.

 

people have walked dogs for a lot longer than people have cached. they understand dog walkers while being confused by the technology bit with us. the sport tends to be either you get it or you don't, without the middle ground.

 

you might not like dogs but you can understand that they need walking.......

 

give it time, stick to the guidelines and slowly we'll get the landowners on our side.

Link to comment

Hi, I would like to point out a few bits too:

 

The warden always seems to appear in his 4x4 when we fly model planes at the base but is never around when the kids (and adults) are churning up the area on motorbikes and quads (making much more noise than electric planes).

 

Also you may like to check out Tim & Debbies 'Common find me' cache at the base. It has been archived since November 2004 as there is some layabout camping there. We cycled past day before yesterday to see if it could be unarchived but he was still there along with all his rubbish. Tim had reported him to the warden! Is the warden taking steps for his eviction?

 

Why are there no signs up to stop people / animals swimming in the various lakes up there (like the no motorcycle sign)? Is it still considered safe to use leeches as these lakes are infested with them? My parents have stopped walking their dog up there as she always got ill after jumping in.

 

As it only took 10 to 15 minutes to cycle around half the base, should a warden not use this environmental form of travel?

 

We also noticed that some gravel extraction has taken place at the common in the last couple of weeks with no mention of it in local papers or notices.

 

We have put two caches at Greenham "COMMON" and had both approved (as it was common land). One has destroyed by the annual rotavating of the natrual habitat the council do, and the other was taken without notice.

 

If we need permission to place caches in every location as is implied by this forum and administrators we will have to make a decision on whether to remove all of our caches (most on common land and footpaths) so as to comply with the geocaching guidelines.

 

We are also concerned (after having had a cache stopped from publication due to it being in a bag) with the number if caches in camo bags which seem to disintergrate over a short period of time. Surely a plastic bag is a plastic bag regardless of colour?

 

We know this posting may look like an attack at geocaching.com but it's only pointing out the double standards issues already mentioned along with a bit of history of what goes on at Greenham Common.

 

Personally we think that as with other activites in the uk, geocaching is becoming yet another victim of the 'do-gooders' and nanny state arguments which are springing up every where.

 

Apart from the above though, we would like to say we love Geocaching and we think everyone should lighten up!! :unsure:

Link to comment

I did all the Greenham caches last weekend (apart from one DNF). I greatly enjoyed my ramble around the area and I was pleased to see that all the caches seem to have been placed where visits to them would not cause a huge impact. Most are a few steps off a footpath and most also contain clear instructions of the route to take to get to the cache site, to avoid too much bushwhacking whilst following the needle. After visting another cache that weekend, where the local foliage had been trampled flat, presumably by geocachers, I was all in favour of this. Presumably, as these are being 'monitored' by the rangers, they will have no cause to complain about them and ask for their removal.

 

Although I agree in general with the sentiments of El Spocko & The Fij, despite all the iniquities described, I am afraid the onus is still on the geocaching community to demonstrate that we do not cause any greater impact on the area. This is probably due in part to the fact that geocaching is a new activity that we are seeking to introduce, rather than an old established activity, like the socially acceptable dog walking.

 

BTW, I did not see any adders, basking on tin boxes or otherwise, but I did have a close encounter with several gorse bushes, ow!

Link to comment

We have a set of publicly available guidelines we agree to when placing a cache.

When land owning people become aware of these caches we can be examined against these guidelines.

We are then asked "if you are not following your own rules on placement which other rules are you not following"..

Link to comment

El Spocko & The Fij have correctly pointed out, that to comply with our own guidelines, we will need to remove all of the caches that have been placed without permission. In my estimation, most caches have been placed without permission.

 

If I have understood the recent threads in this forum correctly, the policy of The Reviewers seems to be that they are dealing with issues regarding existing (non-permission) caches as and when they arrise, whilst trying to ensure that prospective new caches on land owned or managed by public bodies or NGOs receive permission before they are placed. I also believe that there is a tacit acceptance by The Reviewers that caches (especially micros) will continue to be placed, without the permission of the landowner, as long as it obvious in the opinion of the cache placer and The Reviewer that the chances of the cache ever becoming an issue is very small.

 

I hope that what I have divined is correct, because it seems to be a very common sense approach.

 

Graeme.

Edited by The Intrepid Scotts
Link to comment
Hi, I would like to point out a few bits too:

 

The warden always seems to appear in his 4x4 when we fly model planes at the base but is never around when the kids (and adults) are churning up the area on motorbikes and quads (making much more noise than electric planes).

 

Also you may like to check out Tim & Debbies 'Common find me' cache at the base. It has been archived since November 2004 as there is some layabout camping there. We cycled past day before yesterday to see if it could be unarchived but he was still there along with all his rubbish. Tim had reported him to the warden! Is the warden taking steps for his eviction?

 

Why are there no signs up to stop people / animals swimming in the various lakes up there (like the no motorcycle sign)? Is it still considered safe to use leeches as these lakes are infested with them? My parents have stopped walking their dog up there as she always got ill after jumping in.

 

As it only took 10 to 15 minutes to cycle around half the base, should a warden not use this environmental form of travel?

 

We also noticed that some gravel extraction has taken place at the common in the last couple of weeks with no mention of it in local papers or notices.

 

We have put two caches at Greenham "COMMON" and had both approved (as it was common land). One has destroyed by the annual rotavating of the natrual habitat the council do, and the other was taken without notice.

 

If we need permission to place caches in every location as is implied by this forum and administrators we will have to make a decision on whether to remove all of our caches (most on common land and footpaths) so as to comply with the geocaching guidelines.

 

We are also concerned (after having had a cache stopped from publication due to it being in a bag) with the number if caches in camo bags which seem to disintergrate over a short period of time. Surely a plastic bag is a plastic bag regardless of colour?

 

We know this posting may look like an attack at geocaching.com but it's only pointing out the double standards issues already mentioned along with a bit of history of what goes on at Greenham Common.

 

Personally we think that as with other activites in the uk, geocaching is becoming yet another victim of the 'do-gooders' and nanny state arguments which are springing up every where.

 

Apart from the above though, we would like to say we love Geocaching and we think everyone should lighten up!! :unsure:

I agree with a lot of what you say but I would suggest that a more constructive approach would be to take your legitimate concerns to the land managers. If they are aware that geocachers share a common concern with them for the preservation of the environment of the common they might be more receptive to allowing more caches on the land they manage. Also they are the only ones that can take action to prevent the abuses you mention.

Link to comment
I also believe that there is a tacit acceptance by The Reviewers that caches (especially micros) will continue to be placed, without the permission of the landowner, as long as it obvious in the opinion of the cache placer and The Reviewer that the chances of the cache ever becoming an issue is very small.

 

I'm sorry that is not what we intended you to think :laughing: .

 

Every cacher who places a cache ticks a box to say they have the landowners permssion to place the cache. That is a condition of listing, and we always used to accept that this was happening.

 

Recently we have recieved more and more complaints from organisations and landowners about caches being placed without permission. This has resulted in our being involved in long, detailed and often very time-consuming correspondances and appologies.

 

We now have a fairly good idea of those locations that usually will not give permission or rarely give permission. It is caches in these locations, such as Nature Reserves, SSSIs and some afforested land, that we are now tending to archive until we have recieved a positive assurance that permission does, indeed, exist.

 

In the last week or so since we adopted this policy I, and I do not know the details of Lactod's experience, have only done this, I think, to about 6 caches, and have had positive responses about permission from 2 of them and hope I have helped the setter of the other 4 get in touch with, possibly, the right people to speak to to get permission.

 

Which proves what we already knew, the vast majority of you good geofolk out there do get permission for your caches, and the few who did not really realise how inportant this is are relativley newcomers to the sport/madness, and happy to make every effort to redress the issue.

 

Cheers and Cache Well,

 

Eckington

Link to comment

I'm sorry that is not what we intended you to think :laughing: .

 

Every cacher who places a cache ticks a box to say they have the landowners permssion to place the cache. That is a condition of listing, and we always used to accept that this was happening.

 

I don't want to drag this out more than necessary.... but are you really saying that I have to have specific permission to hide a micro such as a painted tic tac box behind a road sign that has ivy growing over it?

 

I always read the rules as saying 'adequate persmission' to place the cache.

Link to comment

I'm sorry that is not what we intended you to think :laughing: .

 

Every cacher who places a cache ticks a box to say they have the landowners permssion to place the cache.  That is a condition of listing, and we always used to accept that this was happening.

 

I don't want to drag this out more than necessary.... but are you really saying that I have to have specific permission to hide a micro such as a painted tic tac box behind a road sign that has ivy growing over it?

 

I always read the rules as saying 'adequate persmission' to place the cache.

....if you believe that, for a breathmint box magneted to an ivy covered roadsign, no permission is "adequate" permission, then fine. You tick the box in good faith and the cache, assuming all else is OK, flies free :o .

Link to comment

I'm sorry that is not what we intended you to think :o .

 

Every cacher who places a cache ticks a box to say they have the landowners permssion to place the cache.  That is a condition of listing, and we always used to accept that this was happening.

 

I don't want to drag this out more than necessary.... but are you really saying that I have to have specific permission to hide a micro such as a painted tic tac box behind a road sign that has ivy growing over it?

 

I always read the rules as saying 'adequate persmission' to place the cache.

The guidelines are quite clear (and I won't bother linking them again :laughing:). If you tick the box to reassure the reviewers that it's OK to place the cache where you have, we'll generally accept what you tell us.

 

There are specifics which have already been discussed but normally things go through without problems. Eckington has mentioned our experiences in the last week or so. Like him, I reckon the majority of caches have been listed without problems and those where there has been a permission issues (e.g. Nature Reserve or SSSI) again, most have gone through after we asked for details.

 

It's really encouraging to note that when cachers have approached the local warden or whoever, and explained what was happening, permission has almost always been forthcoming. :D

Link to comment

The guidelines are quite clear (and I won't bother linking them again :o). If you tick the box to reassure the reviewers that it's OK to place the cache where you have, we'll generally accept what you tell us.

 

It's really encouraging to note that when cachers have approached the local warden or whoever, and explained what was happening, permission has almost always been forthcoming.  :laughing:

Thanks for the reply. Just what I hoped you would say.

 

Regarding the attitude of wardens. I bumped into one a while ago who thought I was a volunteer joining them on the work day... no, just here for a walk.

 

"You're not a geocacher are you?"

 

"Why... is that a bad thing?"

 

"No, we found the cache when we were working, looked on the website and thought it looked clever.... wondered what a geocacher looked like". He was really happy with the cache being there and kept it stocked with info leaflets and 'join the trust' forms.

 

Clearly had not specifically given permission in advance but was giving the green light once he knew about it.

Edited by kbootb
Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...