Night caches tacks and stuff

[markandlynn]

Many thanks for your e-mail.
The Woodland Trust does not support or advocate the use of firetacks or pins being placed directly into trees for the following reasons:
1. Such practice can lead to direct damage to the tree – which can lead to two main points of concern:

So no nestboxes allowed either then ?

• One of the main roles of tree bark is to protect the tree from infections such as bacterial or fungal attack – damage to the bark can lead to infections gaining access to the tree.

So no gnawing bark loving animals like sheep nearby then ? or insects for that matter


• Immediately under the bark is the system of “tubes” through which food and nutrients required by the tree flow – again these can be disrupted or damaged causing growth problems for the tree – this is especially true in younger trees where the bark tends to be thinning.

Dont use small young trees then OK got that

2. Nails, tacks and pins if left on a growing tree will eventually end up being “included” within the bark and sometimes stem of the tree. They are usually not visible from the outside when this ooccurs. Chainsaws used in the felling of trees are susceptible to damage and in the worse case scenario chainsaws can “kick back” towards the user when they hit metal/nails within the tree. This is potentially a real danger to forestry workers.

This is why the wardens of both places we have night caches know the exact routes in fact they have both used them at night.

If they were to be felled we would of course know and remove them.

Our reflectors are made from drawing pins which intrude into the outer layer of the tree 4mm these are smaller than other items such as stones that get caught into trees.

Nails in trees are obviously an issue but no night cache of ours uses them or any day cache for that matter.

3. On the whole the attachment of plastic wallets or other items to trees directly tends to be both intrusive within a woodland setting and can lead to littering as the plastic or paper breaks down.

Err not applicable maybe they think we are nailing cache boxes to trees, or toher items to form a trail this does bring the issue of how do they attach bird boxes ??, and other notices

4. Where the fixing of message is part of the geocache then the use of gate or fence posts or other converted timber would be a more preferable location and we would advocate that all such geocaches are removed before they start to break down along with any fixing nails or pins.

Always prefer this technique but there are not always enough

5. The use of lightweight and natural string products such as jute or natural wood hung from low hanging accessible branches would seem to be a preferable alternative but again we would advocate that these should be removed.

We use this technique in rectory wood ( a day cache)

Not sure if this helps but if you feel you want to talk this through further please just let me know.
All the best.

So as long as there is permision and everyone knows where they are not a problem.

If the wood is for lumber then this may be a potential issue but our tacks are placed in the older more mature trees and avoid any obvious lumber trees (straight ones)

I really cant see the issue as long as they are removable.


NB

Like graveyards, train stations etc i believe any night cache in the UK must have express permission, i base this on the fact that one of our night caches attracted a strange goings on in woods phone call to the landowner. Who informed them of a night trail in the woods.

[Mongoose39uk]

The counter to all the points really is "their land, their trees".

While I myself very much doubt a fire tack will do much or any damage, all anyone can do is lowly try to persuade.

[Happy Humphrey]

I'd hazard that they didn't really understand the concept of trail markers. I suspect that a common woodpecker or other tree-crawling bird does much more "damage" to trees than a handful of tacks pressed a few millimetres into thick bark.

Their reply looks to me like the usual default position, i.e. just tell people to go away, but make it look like you're trying to be helpful and informative at the same time.

[markandlynn]

The counter to all the points really is "their land, their trees".

While I myself very much doubt a fire tack will do much or any damage, all anyone can do is lowly try to persuade.

True,

we took the precaution of taking the pins with us to show them, the only question was "is it copper"

As HH says it looks like a standard dont fasten stuff to trees reply.

I got the impression from the reply that they thought people were nailing stuff to the trees not using small tacks.

Having imported bosnian timber in the past there are worse things than nails to catch the odd chainsaw !! however the odd nail in a tree can be coped with its when someone uses a cluster of them that issues arise.

[studlyone]

there are worse things than nails to catch the odd chainsaw !! however the odd nail in a tree can be coped with its when someone uses a cluster of them that issues arise.Having been to Bosnia I can attest to some of the things they hammer into trees out there. I wouldn't be surprised if you found lots of lead in trees from that area of the world either.

[markandlynn]

Having been to Bosnia I can attest to some of the things they hammer into trees out there. I wouldn't be surprised if you found lots of lead in trees from that area of the world either.

The lead was not too bad as its generally soft ish it was the shrapnel that caused the most issues. (guess it was only doing its job :eek:)

We resourced from lithuania in the end.:socool:

[uk89camaro]

So I've heard the OP on the GC thread, has got a life ban on posting. Based on a "guardian tree huggers", "idiot", and "boll*x".

Bit harsh I thought.

[Mongoose39uk]

Got my sock puppet on there banned for a lot less years ago, please edit the last word.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

So I've heard the OP on the GC thread, has got a life ban on posting. Based on a "guardian tree huggers", "idiot", and "88888".

Bit harsh I thought.

Sorry did the Owner of the Sock Account tell you that?

Groundspeaks Forum Guidelines (https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules) in particular Section 4



4. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock puppet is an account made on an internet message board by a person who already has an account for the purpose of posting anonymously. Use your own account for posting personal opinions. Posts from known sock puppet accounts will be deleted and both the puppet and actual account may be banned from using the services of Groundspeak.maybe the actual owner of the Sock would care to reveal who he/she is

Deci

edited to remove the offensive word in the quote that I missed sorry Deci

[The Hornet]

Groundspeaks Forum Guidelines (https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules) in particular Section 4


4. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock puppet is an account made on an internet message board by a person who already has an account for the purpose of posting anonymously. Use your own account for posting personal opinions. Posts from known sock puppet accounts will be deleted and both the puppet and actual account may be banned from using the services of Groundspeak.
Deci
Not necessarily... https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=23226&postcount=48

But as I said, it's only a bit of fun :)

[uk89camaro]

Got my sock puppet on there banned for a lot less years ago, please edit the last word.

done.

[Mongoose39uk]

Thank you :)

[Happy Humphrey]

Hmm...I seem to have lost track with this thread. Who's the OP on the GC thread (and what is it?).

[uk89camaro]

Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill, seems really strange to me. It's just fishing for boxes in the woods, can we all take a chill pill please.


Sorry did the Owner of the Sock Account tell you that?

No

Groundspeaks in particular Section 4a

Sock accounts may actually be a good thing, as some folks would be aprehensive in their repsonse otherwise.

maybe the actual owner of the Sock would care to reveal who he/she is

Don't know

Deci

edited to remove the offensive word in the quote that I missed sorry Deci

Me too

[PopUpPirate]

We've had a fair, honest response from the Woodland Trust, and I think we should respect it, and hopefully earn respect in return.

That said, I don't agree with their comments, and I know enough to have a valid opinion on it. The odd tack in a tree won't do the slightest bit of damage in reality. But I guess they see the risk of losing 1 tree as to be too great.

Now, if we were to offer to do a CITO event, or events, on Woodlands Trust sites, removing, say, Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam, or Rhododendrons, perhaps we'd be seen as a force for good and we could negotiate from there?

[Mongoose39uk]

Sensible suggestion pup

[jacobite]

Now, if we were to offer to do a CITO event, or events, on Woodlands Trust sites, removing, say, Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam, or Rhododendrons, perhaps we'd be seen as a force for good and we could negotiate from there?

Aye, I would tend to think that would be the way forward.

I know that Haggis Hunter works closely with the "Water of Leith Trust", and helps them with CITO's based on the water of leith..........and yeah you guessed it! we don't have any problems placing caches there.

[markandlynn]

The OP was the dog (not hard to work out who that probably is) and then Dave did the right thing in contacting the forestry guys for clarification and posting thier response in a seperate thread.

Who as HH points out said no please dont go nailing stuff into trees.

I thought as the owner of two night caches i could add my experience in setting them up as it took quite a lot of work and close liason with the park wardens and landowner, after all it would be easier to plant a trad than a two hour trail in the dark.

We have had one local resident report lights in the woods but this was easily sorted when they were informed of the night trail.

[Happy Humphrey]

Yes, it was useful that Dave got a second opinion. It appears that even the slightest use of trees in this way is officially frowned upon (despite various forestry experts being unaware). Even a microscopic hole in the outer bark is deemed a danger to the tree. :dunno: Can you imagine what environmental mayhem is caused by popular forest adventure sports like "Go Ape"! I really didn't realise that trees are so fragile (I checked, and all the dozen-or-so trees at the bottom of my garden have nails and screws in them).

It seems that a worldwide guideline will have to be brought in, at least as an example to other sports and pastimes that frequently use tacks and nails like this. :( It seems that farmers are also pretty ignorant in this area too, judging from the hundreds of nails you see banged into trees all over the place.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Just to clarify things, I was forwarded the emails by the cacher who made the inquires.

As the UK Reviewers have been informed of the official position of the 2 Landowners, we have No option but to follow their stated policies when reviewing caches on land owned by them.

I've posted the current situation regarding the Reviewing of caches using Fire Tacks Here
(https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?s=&showtopic=206464&view=findpost&p=3685788)

Deci

[The Hornet]

Just to clarify things, I was forwarded the emails by the cacher who made the inquires.

As the UK Reviewers have been informed of the official position of the 2 Landowners, we have No option but to follow their stated policies when reviewing caches on land owned by them.

I've posted the current situation regarding the Reviewing of caches using Fire Tacks Here
(https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?s=&showtopic=206464&view=findpost&p=3685788)

Deci
Absolutely right Deci.

Whatever your own opinions on this matter (and I tend towards those who think this is an over reaction), it is the landowner who sets the RULES by which he will allow us to play our games on his land. If they say "No firetacks" then until they can be convinced otherwise, "No firetacks" it is.

[Happy Humphrey]

If they say "No firetacks" then until they can be convinced otherwise, "No firetacks" it is.
Agreed, as long as there is at least one attempt to (gently) convince them otherwise. Or at least to verify that they have properly understood the request.

Part of the problem with an "official" approach is that the landowner/manager is backed into a corner. Asked informally, he may be content to turn a blind eye to issues such as firetacks, knowing very well that mature trees are sturdy beasts and as long as common sense is applied they are not going to fall down because of a drawing pin in the bark for a few years.
But forced to give a decision which will be recorded in writing and may be quoted, the poor official has little option but to take the obvious safe line and give formal disapproval. What does he have to gain by sticking his neck out? But everyone else ends up worse off.

[Dave Gerrie]

I agree with HH - it all depends on how they were asked, who was asked, and how the practice was 'sold'. I should imagine that, with some carefully worded questions to the right people, I could probably get the placing of ammo cans banned in vast swathes of the country! needless to say, I won't be asking those questions! Conversely, by wording the questions carefully, Fire Tacks would probably be deemed acceptable in most areas, using a bit of common sense.

[Fluffy's Revenge]

Absolutely right Deci.

Whatever your own opinions on this matter (and I tend towards those who think this is an over reaction), it is the landowner who sets the RULES by which he will allow us to play our games on his land. If they say "No firetacks" then until they can be convinced otherwise, "No firetacks" it is.

While this is undoubtedly true, and I speak as a member of The Woodland Trust, the reply was a little insulting as the reasons given do not square with logic of thier own actions. It also shows a lack of PR savvy - "we have give it consideration and have decided we would prefer that you did not go sticking things in out trees thanks you" would have been far more effective.

However, back to the "the land owner is always right" theme, I wonder how they would respond if I asked could they tell me if there are any particular bird species that spread to my garden from their wood that I should not shoot.

Fluffy

[fraggle69]

just light a fire then tell everyone to follow the flames, plenty wood around to burn :D

[The Book Of Shadows]

just light a fire then tell everyone to follow the flames, plenty wood around to burn :D

Nice one :D

[nobbynobbs]

I made a comment on the dark side questioning whether it would be acceptable to use epoxy resin to stick firetacks to the trees and therefore not inflict any injury to them... not been back yet to see the reply but it's an option to discuss with any warden.