G A G B Guidelines

[moote01]

I have been informed from GC.com, that the guidelies published on this website do not hold any weight in their eyes.


The guideline you quoted, "no cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)" Is not a Groundspeak, Inc. guideline and therefore does not apply to caches listed on Geocaching.com.

Is this correct? Can we place caches in areas such as drystone walls, SAMs, SSSIs etc? Is this just plain stupid, that GC.com do not recognise local rules, many of which are produced by statute.

Moote

[Mongoose39uk]

I believe this question has been answered several times by the local reviewers.

It is a question for them please take it there.

[moote01]

I have previously sought permission to post topics like this in these forums.

It is an issue which affects the GAGB, as it is the guidelines which the GAGB stand for that are being ignored, for a set of American rules.

If you feel this topic is unsuitable for here then use your powers as a moderator of the forum and close it.

[Mongoose39uk]

Sorry Moote not being baited. Post away mate.

[Lactodorum]

I don't normally post here but just to allay any fears GAGB members may have from Moote's selective quotation. The full text of the answer received from groundspeak was:


I have great faith in our reviewers and have spoken to them regarding
this issue. The guideline you quoted, "no cache should be placed in such
a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)" Is not a
Groundspeak, Inc. guideline and therefore does not apply to caches
listed on Geocaching.com. The people in charge of the cave have issued
the following which is more than enough permission needed for the cave.


I would like to remind people that local reviewers DO take into account local issues. That's all I want to say on the matter here.

[Bill D (wwh)]

Gc.com UK reviewers aren't in any way bound by GAGB's guidelines - they're required to work to gc.com's guidelines. There seems to be some confusion over this in the Groundspeak forums on occasion.

But there is a degree of flexibility, and as Lac says, they do take account of local issues. Also, there are situations where a landowner agreement requires that caches placed on their land must meet GAGB guidelines. If one of them doesn't, then technically at least, it doesn't have landowner permission. I know our reviewers take matters like that into consideration too.

[MCL]

Originally posted by moote01@May 21 2006, 12:55 PM
I have been informed from GC.com, that the guidelies published on this website do not hold any weight in their eyes.

Is this correct? Can we place caches in areas such as drystone walls, SAMs, SSSIs etc? Is this just plain stupid, that GC.com do not recognise local rules, many of which are produced by statute.

Moote
I'm surprised the question was asked in the first place. To add to what Bill has said above, people often forget that the guidelines are only guidelines and not rules (since they can't be enforced on cachers in general), and there is no reason why the US-based GC.com should be held to account over them. They never published them, and never negotiated them, and have their own guidelines anyway.

When the question is posed as to whether "we" can place caches in certain areas, then the answer is no "we" shouldn't be doing that because as members of GAGB we are supposed to be upholding the guidelines of the GAGB. It's one of the things we agree when we come on board. But that has nothing to do with what non GAGB cachers may do or be allowed to do. Sure it would be nice if they stuck to them, and I'm sure many do, but you can't lay down the iron rod of law to people who have not agreed and aren't members. And that of course includes all the US owners of GC.com....

The guidelines that happen to be backed up by statute are a different matter slightly, and of course to place things in legally restricted areas is plainly not allowed. However, even in this case, it is not GC.com's responsibility to enforce UK law. That's the job of the police. So once again the answer is that GC has nothing to say but "its not our call, folks!"

[nobbynobbs]

:wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

[moote01]

Originally posted by MCL+May 22 2006, 02:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MCL @ May 22 2006, 02:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 21 2006, 12:55 PM
I have been informed from GC.com, that the guidelies published on this website do not hold any weight in their eyes.

Is this correct? Can we place caches in areas such as drystone walls, SAMs, SSSIs etc? Is this just plain stupid, that GC.com do not recognise local rules, many of which are produced by statute.

Moote
I&#39;m surprised the question was asked in the first place. To add to what Bill has said above, people often forget that the guidelines are only guidelines and not rules (since they can&#39;t be enforced on cachers in general), and there is no reason why the US-based GC.com should be held to account over them. They never published them, and never negotiated them, and have their own guidelines anyway.

When the question is posed as to whether "we" can place caches in certain areas, then the answer is no "we" shouldn&#39;t be doing that because as members of GAGB we are supposed to be upholding the guidelines of the GAGB. It&#39;s one of the things we agree when we come on board. But that has nothing to do with what non GAGB cachers may do or be allowed to do. Sure it would be nice if they stuck to them, and I&#39;m sure many do, but you can&#39;t lay down the iron rod of law to people who have not agreed and aren&#39;t members. And that of course includes all the US owners of GC.com....

The guidelines that happen to be backed up by statute are a different matter slightly, and of course to place things in legally restricted areas is plainly not allowed. However, even in this case, it is not GC.com&#39;s responsibility to enforce UK law. That&#39;s the job of the police. So once again the answer is that GC has nothing to say but "its not our call, folks&#33;" [/b][/quote]
My point here is that if people just places caches where they wish, be they members of the GAGB or not, then the day will come that a lot of the good work which is put into negotiation will fall flat on it face, and landowners could and might prosecute cachers for dumping litter (Geocache).

Is this a situation that we want to get into? No, that is why we have Guidelines, if these are not seen to be being adhered to, then the good work you are doing will be penalized. This will not be good for the game.

The cache in question which Lactodorum refers is not actually on the landowners property, it is underground and belongs to other parties, just in the same way that you do not own the coal under your house. The actual agreement is for passage across the land to the entrance

The access information was taken from a Caving based website and was spacifically arranged for cavers who incidentally now usually have to prove that they have 3rd party public liability insurance.

So where are we at here? It looks like people are assuming far too much, a negotiation between the BCA (and it&#39;s relevant local bodies) can&#39;t be hijacked by any other group of individuals. The high standards set by these bodies should also be looked at, caves normally have specific conservation issues, this cave is one of these places, it is included in the Castleton SSSI and as such is of important, for people to allow the littering of this cave with geocaches in such an area is crass irresponsible and uncaring.

Do we want bodies like the Forestry Commission, English Nature, and Local and Regional Authorities to see that many just do not care about good practices, the signal this cache sends out is that we are not bothered about conservation and negotiation.

But if all the Guidelines are, are Guidelines, then rip them up and start again as you really need to negotiate with GC.com to set a standard that reflects the UK and UK conservation. Without this you are on a road to caches littering some of the most sacred places in the UK.

[The Hokesters]

Am I being dim? Is it not for the reviewers to decide at the end of the day?

[moote01]

Originally posted by The Hokesters@May 22 2006, 12:00 PM
Am I being dim? Is it not for the reviewers to decide at the end of the day?
But the reviewers don&#39;t know about issues of Cave conservation. They see it as a Game, but it is a game that could be terminated by landowners if we act irresponsibly. See this thread as to what is happening (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=711)

[The Wobbly Club]

HERE WE GO AGAIN.&#33;&#33;&#33;

[moote01]

Originally posted by The Wobbly Club@May 22 2006, 02:40 PM
HERE WE GO AGAIN.&#33;&#33;&#33;
Lets not travel off in another direction.

[t.a.folk]

When the question is posed as to whether "we" can place caches in certain areas, then the answer is no "we" shouldn&#39;t be doing that because as members of GAGB we are supposed to be upholding the guidelines of the GAGB. It&#39;s one of the things we agree when we come on board. But that has nothing to do with what non GAGB cachers may do or be allowed to do. Sure it would be nice if they stuck to them, and I&#39;m sure many do, but you can&#39;t lay down the iron rod of law to people who have not agreed and aren&#39;t members.


If landowners give permission for a cache or caches to be placed on their land on the understanding that G.A.G.B.guidelines are upheld are non G.A.G.B. members excluded from the landowners requirements ?

[Bill D (wwh)]

t.a. folk wrote:
If landowners give permission for a cache or caches to be placed on their land on the understanding that G.A.G.B.guidelines are upheld are non G.A.G.B. members excluded from the landowners requirements ?
No. If a landowner stipulates that caches placed on their land must meet certain requirements, then those requirements apply to anyone placing a cache there.

[nobbynobbs]

ok i can understand the drive behind this thread but not the final direction....


please clarify exactly what the heck you actually want in the end moote.

the guidelines have been agreed. they are not legally enforcable on cachers by the approvers. only the official departmnts ie police etc can do that.

yes people being ignorant can ruin it for all of us and not many of us are so ignorant as to not give a damn but you will always get some idiot who will break all the rules just because they can.

but this is in danger of going way off the rails again... and again and....

so please just as short as possible explain what would make you happy? how can we resolve this issue?

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by moote01@May 22 2006, 11:36 AM
and landowners could and might prosecute cachers for dumping litter (Geocache).




.....................Pot & Kettle....................



From the cache log


"On the way out we collected a good binliner full of rubbish which included a fair amount of broken glass. You&#39;d think that these caving types would be a bit more sensitive,"

[t.a.folk]

QUOTE
t.a. folk wrote:
If landowners give permission for a cache or caches to be placed on their land on the understanding that G.A.G.B.guidelines are upheld are non G.A.G.B. members excluded from the landowners requirements ?



Bill D replied.
"No. If a landowner stipulates that caches placed on their land must meet certain requirements, then those requirements apply to anyone placing a cache there.


What about cachers SEEKING the cache/caches there who are not GAGB members ?

[Bill D (wwh)]

t.a. folk wrote:
What about cachers SEEKING the cache/caches there who are not GAGB members ?
The issue of seekers not observing any requirements of the placer or the landowner is of course a thorny one&#33; I don&#39;t think membership of GAGB is relevant here, though. When it comes down to it, cachers are essentially all individuals and not governed by any central organisation or bound by any set of rules.

If I discovered that the area around a cache of mine was being trashed by irresponsible cachers, or that people were approaching it across private land or any such, then I would either make appropriate changes to the cache or archive it. And I&#39;m sure many other cachers would do the same.

All we can really do about issues like these is to try to police them ourselves as individuals. If someone discovers a situation like that, then a friendly email to the cache owner pointing out the problems is the way to start. If they&#39;re responsive, fine. If not, then if GAGB are informed we&#39;ll try to mediate, as you know. If that doesn&#39;t resolve things then an SBA log, or an email to Lac, Eck or Dec is probably the way to go. But of course the reviewers are in a difficult situation with issues like that. Obviously they can&#39;t get out there to physically check any and every possible problem cache. All they can really do is try to evaluate the situation from afar, and act accordingly.

Given that there are now some ten thousand active caches in the UK, I don&#39;t think we&#39;re doing too badly in this respect, though. Yes, of course there are problems with some caches sometimes, but they&#39;re a tiny minority of that ten thousand.

[nobbynobbs]

moote???????

[MCL]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs@May 24 2006, 04:20 AM
moote???????
Maybe this isn&#39;t a moote point any more...

[t.a.folk]

Apologies to Moote for taking this off topic again .


When the question is posed as to whether "we" can place caches in certain areas, then the answer is no "we" shouldn&#39;t be doing that because as members of GAGB we are supposed to be upholding the guidelines of the GAGB. It&#39;s one of the things we agree when we come on board. But that has nothing to do with what non GAGB cachers may do or be allowed to do. Sure it would be nice if they stuck to them, and I&#39;m sure many do, but you can&#39;t lay down the iron rod of law to people who have not agreed and aren&#39;t members.

There is at least one permissions agreement that states "Gagb Guidleines must be applied " and ..."by hunting this cache you have accepted these conditions" .

[moote01]

Originally posted by dodgydaved+May 23 2006, 06:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dodgydaved @ May 23 2006, 06:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 22 2006, 11:36 AM
and landowners could and might prosecute cachers for dumping litter (Geocache).




.....................Pot & Kettle....................



From the cache log


"On the way out we collected a good binliner full of rubbish which included a fair amount of broken glass. You&#39;d think that these caving types would be a bit more sensitive," [/b][/quote]
Pots and Kettles, nah, so some rubbish was found within a cave entrance, are they positive that it was placed there by Cavers, a sweeping generalisation really. I would guess not as this is a little visited cave due to the extreme danger that is involved it passing beyond the 1st chamber.

[moote01]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs@May 23 2006, 04:08 AM
ok i can understand the drive behind this thread but not the final direction....


please clarify exactly what the heck you actually want in the end moote.

the guidelines have been agreed. they are not legally enforcable on cachers by the approvers. only the official departmnts ie police etc can do that.

yes people being ignorant can ruin it for all of us and not many of us are so ignorant as to not give a damn but you will always get some idiot who will break all the rules just because they can.

but this is in danger of going way off the rails again... and again and....

so please just as short as possible explain what would make you happy? how can we resolve this issue?
I&#39;m trying to get a discussion going on how the GC.com rules (US Based) do not reflect the issues and matters beyond their border.

If GC.com fail to recognise sites such as SSSI and SAM, then it will become a free for all in the UK, not good both ecologically and politically. I wish GC.com to start looking at Global issues and not their own little corner of the planet. Or are we really becoming the 51st State&#33;

[Teasel]

Originally posted by moote01+May 22 2006, 11:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; May 22 2006, 11:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The cache in question which Lactodorum refers is not actually on the landowners property, it is underground and belongs to other parties, just in the same way that you do not own the coal under your house. The actual agreement is for passage across the land to the entrance[/b]
So, who owns the cave itself, and are they happy for the cache to remain?

As I understand it: the cache does not break the Groundspeak rules; the farmer is happy for cachers to cross his land; and even the local cave rescue team are happy. Whether or not it conforms to the GAGB guidelines rather depends on whether the cache risks damage or disturbance to the SSSI. From what I read, far from causing damage, the introduction of geocaching into this cave system has actually improved its condition.

There&#39;s really nothing to be gained by continuing to stamp your foot, saying that in your opinion, caves are "sacred" places where no cache should ever be placed, on principle. Perhaps it might be more fruitful if you spoke to Audra Hurst (the English Nature employee responsible for this SSSI) and found out who owns / is legally responsible for the cave itself? Certainly the only PDO for the Castleton SSSI which is remotely relevant prohibits "Storage of materials in pits, mines, caves", but I somehow doubt storage of a tupperware box is quite what they had in mind by "materials"&#33; :P

<!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 22 2006, 11:36 AM
But if all the Guidelines are, are Guidelines, then rip them up and start again as you really need to negotiate with GC.com to set a standard that reflects the UK and UK conservation.[/quote]
I&#39;m sure many would support Groundspeak allowing regional approvers to set their own rules for geocaching in their country. In the meantime, the GAGB guidelines fill that gap.

[markandlynn]

Originally posted by moote01+May 24 2006, 11:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; May 24 2006, 11:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-nobbynobbs@May 23 2006, 04:08 AM
ok i can understand the drive behind this thread but not the final direction....


please clarify exactly what the heck you actually want in the end moote.

the guidelines have been agreed. they are not legally enforcable on cachers by the approvers. only the official departmnts ie police etc can do that.

yes people being ignorant can ruin it for all of us and not many of us are so ignorant as to not give a damn but you will always get some idiot who will break all the rules just because they can.

but this is in danger of going way off the rails again... and again and....

so please just as short as possible explain what would make you happy? how can we resolve this issue?
I&#39;m trying to get a discussion going on how the GC.com rules (US Based) do not reflect the issues and matters beyond their border.

If GC.com fail to recognise sites such as SSSI and SAM, then it will become a free for all in the UK, not good both ecologically and politically. I wish GC.com to start looking at Global issues and not their own little corner of the planet. Or are we really becoming the 51st State&#33;[/b][/quote]
Id suggest starting a new thread along those lines then otherwise this is a thread drift and a half &#33;&#33; from the original post.

[moote01]

Originally posted by markandlynn+May 24 2006, 12:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (markandlynn @ May 24 2006, 12:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 11:59 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-nobbynobbs@May 23 2006, 04:08 AM
ok i can understand the drive behind this thread but not the final direction....


please clarify exactly what the heck you actually want in the end moote.

the guidelines have been agreed. they are not legally enforcable on cachers by the approvers. only the official departmnts ie police etc can do that.

yes people being ignorant can ruin it for all of us and not many of us are so ignorant as to not give a damn but you will always get some idiot who will break all the rules just because they can.

but this is in danger of going way off the rails again... and again and....

so please just as short as possible explain what would make you happy? how can we resolve this issue?
I&#39;m trying to get a discussion going on how the GC.com rules (US Based) do not reflect the issues and matters beyond their border.

If GC.com fail to recognise sites such as SSSI and SAM, then it will become a free for all in the UK, not good both ecologically and politically. I wish GC.com to start looking at Global issues and not their own little corner of the planet. Or are we really becoming the 51st State&#33;
Id suggest starting a new thread along those lines then otherwise this is a thread drift and a half &#33;&#33; from the original post. [/b][/quote]
That was the original thread, but it became dragged off course. Lets get back on topic

[moote01]

Originally posted by Teasel+May 24 2006, 12:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ May 24 2006, 12:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by moote01@May 22 2006, 11:36 AM
The cache in question which Lactodorum refers is not actually on the landowners property, it is underground and belongs to other parties, just in the same way that you do not own the coal under your house. The actual agreement is for passage across the land to the entrance
So, who owns the cave itself, and are they happy for the cache to remain?

As I understand it: the cache does not break the Groundspeak rules; the farmer is happy for cachers to cross his land; and even the local cave rescue team are happy. Whether or not it conforms to the GAGB guidelines rather depends on whether the cache risks damage or disturbance to the SSSI. From what I read, far from causing damage, the introduction of geocaching into this cave system has actually improved its condition.

There&#39;s really nothing to be gained by continuing to stamp your foot, saying that in your opinion, caves are "sacred" places where no cache should ever be placed, on principle. Perhaps it might be more fruitful if you spoke to Audra Hurst (the English Nature employee responsible for this SSSI) and found out who owns / is legally responsible for the cave itself? Certainly the only PDO for the Castleton SSSI which is remotely relevant prohibits "Storage of materials in pits, mines, caves", but I somehow doubt storage of a tupperware box is quite what they had in mind by "materials"&#33; :P

<!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 22 2006, 11:36 AM
But if all the Guidelines are, are Guidelines, then rip them up and start again as you really need to negotiate with GC.com to set a standard that reflects the UK and UK conservation.
I&#39;m sure many would support Groundspeak allowing regional approvers to set their own rules for geocaching in their country. In the meantime, the GAGB guidelines fill that gap. [/b][/quote]
The cave I believe is owned and managed by one of the local show caves, not sure which one, but it is to do with the mineral rights of the area.

Are you sure the DCRO are happy with this? Can you provided documented evidence of this. This is certainly one of the most dangerous places underground in the UK and passage beyond the 1st chamber could actually mean anyone having and accident is none recoverable.

I help over see the Ease Gill SSSI, which is under the Adopt a Cave scheme, this would almost certainly be classed as polution on one of our clean ups and be removed, this is not unusual in caving as usually the only things left underground are, medical, comunication and safety equipment. Not a geocache this fits into none of these brackets, and as such in the caving world is litter.

You say that cachers improved the situation, the day one dies tell me that&#33;

[Teasel]

Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
The cave I believe is owned and managed by one of the local show caves, not sure which one, but it is to do with the mineral rights of the area.
So, if the show cave believes that allowing geocachers to log an ammo box is no worse than allowing tourists to litter, or allowing cavers from the local university club to go on a "stomp", then that&#39;s up to them, surely?


Are you sure the DCRO are happy with this? Can you provided documented evidence of this.
No - I just extrapolated from your comment: "the cache owner thinks the DCRO will provide this; but they have no jurisdiction over the site".


This is certainly one of the most dangerous places underground in the UK
My guidebook describes it as "Grade V - one of the greatest Derbyshire trips, but be careful". But, as you know, the danger only really begins after the unstable bolder choke in the Main Chamber; the place where the cache is hidden is relatively safe (or, at least, no more dangerous than other 5/5 caches which may require climbing ropes, SCUBA gear etc). On many coastal paths in the country you&#39;ll be less than 10 paces from certain death -- would you quibble over using them because they&#39;re near somewhere really dangerous???


and passage beyond the 1st chamber could actually mean anyone having and accident is none recoverable. [snip] You say that cachers improved the situation, the day one dies tell me that&#33;
Oh, I&#39;m sure they&#39;d get the body out eventually. Even if they didn&#39;t, a geocacher is likely to be wearing more biodegradable clothing than a more experienced caver. I remain to be convinced that one decomposing geocacher would cause significantly more long-term damage to a cave than your average dead sheep. Compare that to the permanent damage from all the soot and piles of discarded carbide added to caves by supposedly responsible potholers&#33; :P

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 11:54 AM

Pots and Kettles, nah, so some rubbish was found within a cave entrance.
....from the photo on the log page it looks further in than that, but then what do I know, it must be nearly 40 yrs since I last went down that particular cave.......well, I was a lot slimmer then.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Teasel+May 24 2006, 03:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel &#064; May 24 2006, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
The cave I believe is owned and managed by one of the local show caves, not sure which one, but it is to do with the mineral rights of the area.
So, if the show cave believes that allowing geocachers to log an ammo box is no worse than allowing tourists to litter, or allowing cavers from the local university club to go on a "stomp", then that&#39;s up to them, surely?


Are you sure the DCRO are happy with this? Can you provided documented evidence of this.
No - I just extrapolated from your comment: "the cache owner thinks the DCRO will provide this; but they have no jurisdiction over the site".


This is certainly one of the most dangerous places underground in the UK
My guidebook describes it as "Grade V - one of the greatest Derbyshire trips, but be careful". But, as you know, the danger only really begins after the unstable bolder choke in the Main Chamber; the place where the cache is hidden is relatively safe (or, at least, no more dangerous than other 5/5 caches which may require climbing ropes, SCUBA gear etc). On many coastal paths in the country you&#39;ll be less than 10 paces from certain death -- would you quibble over using them because they&#39;re near somewhere really dangerous???


and passage beyond the 1st chamber could actually mean anyone having and accident is none recoverable. [snip] You say that cachers improved the situation, the day one dies tell me that&#33;
Oh, I&#39;m sure they&#39;d get the body out eventually. Even if they didn&#39;t, a geocacher is likely to be wearing more biodegradable clothing than a more experienced caver. I remain to be convinced that one decomposing geocacher would cause significantly more long-term damage to a cave than your average dead sheep. Compare that to the permanent damage from all the soot and piles of discarded carbide added to caves by supposedly responsible potholers&#33; :P [/b][/quote]
Caving is not a fun hobby, it is a serious sport, as the boulder choke is within the second chamber it is a hazard that is there, they move in all directions including forward. Yes it is Grade V (the most serious), and having been in on one occasion I would say it is certainly worthy of this. My question now is Why should inexperienced cachers take risks that might affect other people lives, they are probably more likely to have a serious accident than someone who respects the danger of the environment.

This is a fool hardy cache and the person who set it has not adequately warned people of the dangers, there are no cave rescue call out procedures.

But to get back on track here, caves are protected within the Castleton SSSI, so the leaving of a cache is violating that. You all jump up in arms if a man mad structure is used as a hiding place (Dry stone walls) why can&#39;t a natural feature be treated with the same high respect.

Do we wish to see both Londowners and Statutory bodies restrict us from caching because we leave a cache in a recognised location. I can tell you the answer is no.

As for the recovery of a body, if you have ever been involved in cave rescue you would know that sometimes things are not easy. Caching is greatly at fault here and all you wish to do is mock&#33; Well mock away, you will win no argument with such a stance

[Teasel]

Just in case there&#39;s anyone reading who&#39;s getting worried about geocaches in SAMs / SSSIs, Moote&#39;s implication that geocaching is necessarily a violation of the SSSI is incorrect. (At least in legal terms - there are those whose personal opinion is that any cache placed within line of sight of an ancient monument, even if hidden from view, is a "violation", but that&#39;s a different story&#33;).

SSSI status can be granted for any number of reasons. For each individual site, a list of PDOs (Potentially Damaging Operations) is laid down. These are activities for which the landowner must first apply to English Nature before carrying out. It is therefore expecially important to contact the landowner when planning a cache in an SSSI, as they will know what is and is not permitted. But there are many, quite legitimate, caches on SSSIs and SAMs, with the full agreement and cooperation of the landowner.

Anyway, back to the troll feeding... ;)


Originally posted by moote01+May 24 2006, 01:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; May 24 2006, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My question now is Why should inexperienced cachers take risks that might affect other people lives, they are probably more likely to have a serious accident than someone who respects the danger of the environment.[/b]
Careful here - anything you say would apply to climbing caches, SCUBA caches, mountain caches, even coastal path caches, just as much as subterranian caches&#33;

Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
This is a fool hardy cache and the person who set it has not adequately warned people of the dangers, there are no cave rescue call out procedures.
Nor any mountain rescue callout procedures for Don&#39;t Look Down (http://stats.guk2.com/caches/osgb_cache_details.php?g=14820&log=y). And I can say with reasonable confidence that BMRT have been called to The Roaches more recently than DCRO to Winnats Head&#33; Sometimes it&#39;s a case of "if the obvious precautions aren&#39;t obvious to you, you obviously shouldn&#39;t think about attempting it".


Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
You all jump up in arms if a man mad structure is used as a hiding place (Dry stone walls) why can&#39;t a natural feature be treated with the same high respect.
Personally, I tend to assume that there is not a landowner in the country who would agree to a geocache being placed inside one of his walls. Therefore any cache in such a wall I automatically assume to be a danger to geocaching. However, there are many landowners who, quite legally and rationally, consent to the placement of a geocache in an SSSI which they manage.


Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
Do we wish to see both Londowners and Statutory bodies restrict us from caching because we leave a cache in a recognised location. I can tell you the answer is no.
Leaving a cache in a recognised location is not a problem. Doing so without the permission of the land manager certainly would be&#33; Remember that 7% of England and 12% of Scotland is within an SSSI (not to mention SAMs), and in a large number of cases, landowners and geocachers can work together to ensure that geocaching activities present no risk of damaging the SSSI.


Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
As for the recovery of a body, if you have ever been involved in cave rescue you would know that sometimes things are not easy.
Well, I trained in the basics of self rescue in my student days with CUCC, pushing caves in the Loser Plateau. More recently, BMRT borrowed some proper kit from DCRO to evaluate and I had a play. And I do have first hand experience of the difficulties of recovering multiple bits of a mangled body from a rockfall. But, no, I&#39;ve never put it all together and been involved in a really nasty rescue underground. Cave rescuers are a breed apart and I have nothing but respect for them&#33;

<!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
Caching is greatly at fault here and all you wish to do is mock&#33; Well mock away, you will win no argument with such a stance[/quote]
If I mock, it&#39;s because you always seem to get such a bee in your bonnet about the potential for death in every situation you see. I&#39;m only glad you no longer insist on capitalising the word. I&#39;m really not sure what your main argument is, nor what you hope to achieve by tabling it. Is it the SSSI, the danger to cachers, the potential danger to rescuers, or maybe just the intrusion of muggles into "your" underground domain which is annoying you? It&#39;s all got a bit muddled&#33;

[moote01]

The Cave Conservation Code

Clumsiness can wreck cave formations.

Observe taped routes - they are there to safeguard the cave.

Never leave litter or spent carbide in a cave - pollution kills cave life.

Set others a good example when caving - persuade them to follow it.

Enlist the help of experts to record anything new you may find.

Responsible leaders will avoid taking novices where they may accidentally cause damage.

Vandalism means damage to stals, mud floors, rimstone pools etc., - help prevent it.

Alert your Regional Caving Council to developments which may possibly damage or destroy caves.

Take care not to disturb cave life, especially bats, or remains which may be of archaeological or historical mining interest.

Initiate measures to help look after caves and mines - collect litter, clean off graffiti, etc.

Offer your support to others who initiate conservation measures.

Natural caves and old mines are part of our natural heritage - help protect them

[moote01]

Protect Our Caves

Caves are a unique and very special part of our natural environment. Because of their slow and gradual formation over many thousands of years, fantastic passage shapes develop, breakdown occurs, sediments are deposited, beautiful calcite formations build up, and various creatures find a home. To be the first to enter such a place is an experience unlikely to be forgotten but unfortunately one that only a few people will be privileged to have.

Once a cave has been entered a process of deterioration begins. Sometimes this is extremely rapid but usually it is steady and barely noticeable. Whatever happens, the end result is the same, a place retaining little aesthetic value and interest. Such destruction is a crime against nature and there is a moral responsibility on the part of everyone using this environment for their enjoyment, whatever their motivation and purpose to ensure its preservation for others.

Internal Threats
Why do people go caving? Initially perhaps for the simple experience of entering an unknown and hostile environment. Why they continue is not so simple to appreciate. Some continue for the sport alone, others to pursue a specific scientific interest, but for most it is a combination of many things. The majority of cavers have a purely sporting interest, but a large part of the enjoyment obtained on a trip underground is as a direct result of the type of passage being traversed and the features that can be seen en route. The maintenance of these features in as near natural state as possible is what conservation is about. Their deterioration can only detract from the pleasure of going underground.

Aesthetics and Science
The viewing of formations is one of the most rewarding experiences in a cave. Over many thousands of years the gradual build up of calcite develops beautiful shapes that often defy description. Many of these features are of great importance to cave scientists, who are able to deduce the evolutionary history of cave systems by analysing the formations which occur within them. Damaging or removing such features is like tearing out a page from a historic document. Yet these fragile formations are very susceptible to damage, and their beauty can be permanently spoilt by the touch of a dirty hand. Unfortunately, formations are often in close proximity to passers-by and damage, both intentional and accidental, does occur. As a solution, formations are often taped off and these tapes must never be crossed. Where tapes are not in place special care is required and it should always be remembered that a moments thoughtlessness may deprive someone else of the pleasure of seeing what once was there.

Tapes are installed to protect not only formations but also other features. Often, cave mud and floor deposits are of even greater value to cave scientists than are the more visually spectacular calcite formations. Their preservation is therefore equally vital. The trend in new discoveries is to tape a narrow pathway and restrict movement within this. This ensures the preservation of mud banks and other floor deposits, and ensures minimum disturbance of cave life. Visitors are allowed to see the cave in as near a natural state as possible and can then appreciate the damage done in other, unprotected systems by the passage of many thousands of trampling feet.

Litter and Pollution
In all intensively used caves litter is a major problem. Regular clean-ups of some sites involve the removal of huge amounts of rubbish ranging from chocolate wrappers and ripped clothes, to dead batteries and spent carbide. It takes no real effort on the part of an individual to take out of the cave what he takes in, and little extra effort to take out someone else&#39;s rubbish. Litter of any form is unsightly, and in extreme cases can make going underground unpleasant. In addition, spent carbide and items that decompose, can cause pollution and harm cave life. This is a special problem since dumped carbide is difficult to remove, and its use is being banned in an increasing number of caves.

Fauna and Flora
The unique environment of caves provides a habitat for many specialised life forms which are very susceptible to human disturbance. To the untrained observer bats are the most obvious life form found underground. All species of bat ore endangered and protected by law, and great care should always be taken not to disturb them, especially during the hibernating season from October to March, as this may result in their death. If you see a bat, pass by quickly and quietly. More abundant than bats, but less noticeable, are the numerous other creatures that live throughout the cave on the floor and in pools of water. These tiny animals are adapted to living in this hostile environment and are part of a delicately balanced ecosystem. The less disturbance that man causes, the more chance they have of survival.

Archaeology and Palaeontology
Because their climatic conditions are constant, caves are excellent sites for the preservation of archaeological and palaeontological remains. The excavation of these, and their study, has revealed much about early man. Fortunately most of the material is buried in sediments in entrances and is unlikely to be disturbed except by digging. There are, however, a few sites where, for instance, bone stacks are found unburied. Anyone discovering remains, however seemingly insignificant, should not disturb them, and should seek expert advice immediately. A number of the more important sites where finds have been made have been scheduled as Ancient Monuments by the Department of the Environment.

Photography
Photography has an important role to play in conservation. It can increase awareness of the beauty of caves, and demonstrate the destruction from which they suffer. Unfortunately it can also pose a threat, and even reputable photographers have taken, and have had published, pictures demonstrating poor conservation practice. Additionally, photographers and their models have caused damage in their eagerness to obtain a better picture. The taking of photos is rewarding, but special care is essential owing to the close proximity to formations that is invariably involved. Always bear this in mind. Never cross tapes, watch yourself and your model at all times, and take pictures of damaged formations as well as others to demonstrate the need for conservation.

Digging and Exploration
It is commonly thought that these activities are the realms of experienced cavers alone. This is not the case since most people have a desire to see what lies around the corner. This need not be discouraged but requires appropriate care. If exploration of a side passage may cause damage, first consult someone with a knowledge of the cave to find out if it has already been investigated. If starting a new dig, keep it tidy and avoid carrying mud on your clothing through the rest of the cave. If it seems necessary to break formations to continue, remember that they cannot be replaced; see if you can find an alternative route. Finally, if you find something, explore carefully and tape as necessary immediately. If in doubt seek the help of others with appropriate experience.

Artificial Aids
In the past it was common practice to place artificial aids in caves, but over the years these have been progressively removed. New ones should be installed only if absolutely essential. In recent years with the increased usage of Single Rope Techniques we are presented with another problem, the proliferation of bolts and anchors appearing at the heads of pitches. These can be very unsightly and even dangerous, as excessive numbers can weaken the rock. Wherever possible, natural belays should be used; additional bolts should never be installed where existing ones are adequate.

Visitor Pressure
It is widely accepted that the deterioration of a cave is directly related to the number and type of visitors it receives. Usage is continually rising and a large proportion of these visitors originate from the military, outdoor centres, schools etc. Unless these groups are made more aware of the impact of their activities this trend is likely to continue, with the even more rapid deterioration of our caves. It is therefore vital that adequate supervision is provided for such parties and that they use sites of the lowest conservation interest.

Access Restrictions
Most caves have specific access requirements, ranging from asking the landowner through to the need to obtain a leader. The reasons for these restrictions vary; the landowner may require them, quite apart from any need to control access for conservation purposes, or they may be for conservation reasons alone. There is always considerable debate regarding this subject, but it can be guaranteed that invariably where there is some form of access control there is good reason for it. Failure to comply with these requirements can lead to a loss of access for everyone or to the destruction of some valuable feature. Details of access requirements can be found in the local guidebooks and the handbooks of the Regional Caving Councils.

Adopt-a-Cave Scheme
A national Adopt-A-Cave scheme whereby clubs volunteer their services to look after specific caves has been initiated. The responsibilities include keeping the cave clean, as well as monitoring and reporting on damage. The scheme is very informal. Lists of caves covered by it are regularly published in the magazine Descent, and clubs are invited to join by informing the Editor and/or the NCA of the sites they wish to look after.

External Threats

There are a number of activities carried out on the surface by non-cavers that can threaten a cave, the most serious being quarrying, which can often completely destroy a cave system. Gripping of open moorland and afforestation can also have dramatic effects, such as increased flood flows, erosion of sediments and the deposition of silt and vegetable matter. Land reclamation for agricultural and other purposes can lead to the blocking of entrances, as can indiscriminate tipping. The tipping of anything but inert material can result in pollution which can harm or destroy cave life and prove a danger to cavers. Silage effluent from farms can have similar effects. Anyone learning of any of these problems should immediately bring them to the attention of the NCA or a Regional Caving Council, especially if the cave is an SSSI or NNR.

Statutory Protection
Many caves are given some form of statutory protection, either by being notified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or as a National Nature Reserve (NNR). SSSI&#39;s are so designated by the Nature Conservancy Council, which has a responsibility under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to safeguard them from specified damaging activities. There are 48 cave SSSI&#39;s in Britain, many of which are areas covering a number of individual sites. Information on specific caves included can be obtained from the NCA. Further details on the cave conservation activities of the NCC can be obtained from its Geology and Physiography Section at Northminster House, Peterborough, Hants, PE1 1UA.

[nobbynobbs]

so. lots of replies

but what is it that you actually want other than an argument? to start a discussion ok.

but what would you like the outcome to be? a total ban on cave caches? or ones in sssi etc?
a total ban on caches where people might hurt themselves? i assume that we will then also become a non smoking, drug free, non sweet or saturated fat eating society?

people do stupid things that will endanger themselves. i&#39;ve seen my share of dead bodies.

how do you propose to enforce these strict laws on other cachers? or cachers who don&#39;t use gc.com or gagb? laws not guidelines as they aren&#39;t strict enough by the sound of it.

or is this all just a little rant?

the world is not a perfect place. people will break rules and guidelines and go caving when they have no experience or equipement. they will go swimming in the sea after drinking too much, climb cliffs when they have no knowledge. darwinism in motion or have you never seen the darwin awards?

well that should give you enough rope to hang me.....

[Paul G0TLG]

Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 10:06 PM
Protect Our Caves

Caves are a unique...(blah blah huge snip)
Gosh, clever Moote...did you write all that yourself? Even the long words?

Or did you copy and paste it from here (http://www.caveinfo.org.uk/nca/protect.htm)?

Either way, I&#39;m not sure of the point of such a hugely long post, other than perhaps to prove that Moote knows far mor about speleology than the rest of us. It certainly doesn&#39;t progress any discussion on GAGB guidelines.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Paul G0TLG+May 25 2006, 07:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Paul G0TLG @ May 25 2006, 07:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 24 2006, 10:06 PM
Protect Our Caves

Caves are a unique...(blah blah huge snip)
Gosh, clever Moote...did you write all that yourself? Even the long words?

Or did you copy and paste it from here (http://www.caveinfo.org.uk/nca/protect.htm)?

Either way, I&#39;m not sure of the point of such a hugely long post, other than perhaps to prove that Moote knows far mor about speleology than the rest of us. It certainly doesn&#39;t progress any discussion on GAGB guidelines. [/b][/quote]
Look if you can&#39;t debate important issues don&#39;t bother being involved, Caves are more important than Dry Stone walls and you all think thaey are objects of fun&#33;

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by moote01+May 25 2006, 10:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 @ May 25 2006, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@May 25 2006, 07:52 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 24 2006, 10:06 PM
Protect Our Caves

Caves are a unique...(blah blah huge snip)
Gosh, clever Moote...did you write all that yourself? Even the long words?

Or did you copy and paste it from here (http://www.caveinfo.org.uk/nca/protect.htm)?

Either way, I&#39;m not sure of the point of such a hugely long post, other than perhaps to prove that Moote knows far mor about speleology than the rest of us. It certainly doesn&#39;t progress any discussion on GAGB guidelines.
Look if you can&#39;t debate important issues don&#39;t bother being involved, Caves are more important than Dry Stone walls and you all think thaey are objects of fun&#33; [/b][/quote]
Hmmmmmm.......I don&#39;t think it is caves that have become the objects of fun ;)

[markandlynn]

Caves = more important than dry stone walls
So natural features are more important than man made features then ?
I always wondered why cavemen left the caves to make huts it was to protect the caves i suppose
Thanks for the link http://www.caveinfo.org.uk/nca/protect.htm interesting reading even if it was twice over :blink: if i ever go caving again ill be sure to follow them.

[t.a.folk]

the world is not a perfect place. people will break rules and guidelines and go caving when they have no experience or equipement. they will go swimming in the sea after drinking too much, climb cliffs when they have no knowledge


We could try several of those things but could doesn&#39;t mean we should &#33;&#33;

Anyway the sea is too cold at present . ;)

[Paul G0TLG]

Originally posted by dodgydaved@May 25 2006, 10:56 AM
Hmmmmmm.......I don&#39;t think it is caves that have become the objects of fun ;)
D**n...I wish I&#39;d said that&#33;

[moote01]

It is about time some of you realised, that the natural world is being destroyed by mans worst efforts. If you are not interested in the planet, or conservation, then go and drive around tearing up this great country in pursuit of a silly bit of Tupperware.

But the planet is more important than that in my eyes, but if you feel Tupperware is, well that is just your immature and underdeveloped minds&#33;

[Muggle]

Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 12:57 PM
It is about time some of you realised, that the natural world is being destroyed by mans worst efforts. If you are not interested in the planet, or conservation, then go and drive around tearing up this great country in pursuit of a silly bit of Tupperware.

But the planet is more important than that in my eyes, but if you feel Tupperware is, well that is just your immature and underdeveloped minds&#33;
Maybe we should seal up the entrances to all the caves and leave them as nature intended instead of defiling them by bashing nails into the walls to support ropes and ladders.

Not to mention those that use dynamite underground to open passages up.

SAVE OUR CAVES.

[nobbynobbs]

so for the third time in asking moote&#33;

what is it that you actually want????

you can&#39;t have a debate or discussion without actually stating what you think the correct solution is.

is it a total ban on caves. sssi&#39;s. dry stone walls. give the moderators the right to immediately shut down someones account irretreivably if they transgress.

state your position please.

[nobbynobbs]

so for the third time in asking moote&#33;

what is it that you actually want????

you can&#39;t have a debate or discussion without actually stating what you think the correct solution is.

is it a total ban on caves. sssi&#39;s. dry stone walls. give the moderators the right to immediately shut down someones account irretreivably if they transgress.

state your position please.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Muggle+May 25 2006, 02:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Muggle @ May 25 2006, 02:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 25 2006, 12:57 PM
It is about time some of you realised, that the natural world is being destroyed by mans worst efforts. If you are not interested in the planet, or conservation, then go and drive around tearing up this great country in pursuit of a silly bit of Tupperware.

But the planet is more important than that in my eyes, but if you feel Tupperware is, well that is just your immature and underdeveloped minds&#33;
Maybe we should seal up the entrances to all the caves and leave them as nature intended instead of defiling them by bashing nails into the walls to support ropes and ladders.

Not to mention those that use dynamite underground to open passages up.

SAVE OUR CAVES. [/b][/quote]
You obviously know little of the high standard of work that we Speleologist put into making maintaining caves. In some parts of the UK caves are already gated due to none cavers destroying the environment, should we let this cave in an SSSI go the same way? NO&#33;

As for bashing nails in well that is historic, and no longer happens, all placements of P hangers are planned and placed to last many years. Don&#39;t put your argument in the caving communities lap, this is a geocaching issue&#33;

[moote01]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs@May 25 2006, 03:18 PM
so for the third time in asking moote&#33;

what is it that you actually want????

you can&#39;t have a debate or discussion without actually stating what you think the correct solution is.

is it a total ban on caves. sssi&#39;s. dry stone walls. give the moderators the right to immediately shut down someones account irretreivably if they transgress.

state your position please.
The obvious is that caching in sensitive areas should be looked at with great care by the UK moderators on GC.com

We are the UK not the USA and to live by their rules does not reflect this counties heritage.

The US has it&#39;s protected areas where caches are not allowed, why can&#39;t the UK have it equivalents?

[el10t]

Moote - you are doing a really good job of winding everybody up. Your main point of contention appears to vary from post to post.

Here&#39;s an idea:
Geocachers: don&#39;t damage caves when you go geocaching.
Cavers: don&#39;t damage caves when you go caving.

That seems quite simple to me.

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
Don&#39;t put your argument in the caving communities lap, this is a geocaching issue&#33;
Ah&#33; Sorry, I thought it WAS a caving issue rather than a caching issue, mind you that was only the feeling I got having heard that reviewers and Groundspeak were both happy with the issue.

[moote01]

Originally posted by dodgydaved+May 25 2006, 06:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dodgydaved @ May 25 2006, 06:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
Don&#39;t put your argument in the caving communities lap, this is a geocaching issue&#33;
Ah&#33; Sorry, I thought it WAS a caving issue rather than a caching issue, mind you that was only the feeling I got having heard that reviewers and Groundspeak were both happy with the issue. [/b][/quote]
They ignored the issue, they blatantly refused to look into this issue, they allowed the cache to be placed and stay active even though they were told that the location was unsuitable, they took an agreement made for the caving community and used it to their own ends.

To put it in context the people at GC.com hijacked another bodies agreement, without thought to the skills knowledge and experience of the caving community. That is just not on, as that agreement has clauses such as 3rd party insurance.

They care little about the environmental impact, and the risk volunteers woulds take if a rescue was required.

[moote01]

Originally posted by el10t@May 25 2006, 05:20 PM
Moote - you are doing a really good job of winding everybody up. Your main point of contention appears to vary from post to post.

Here&#39;s an idea:
Geocachers: don&#39;t damage caves when you go geocaching.
Cavers: don&#39;t damage caves when you go caving.

That seems quite simple to me.
It varies because I get sidestepped into defending my position.

As for Geocachers not damaging caves, one foot print in a sensitive area can spoil a cave, caves are aware from experience, where and where not to step or place a hand.

[el10t]

What makes geocachers lower on the intelligence scale than cavers? And also people who stumble across the caves while out walking? Are they silly enough to damage the caves too?

I think what we really need is a locked gate across the mouths of all caves that only cavers have the key to. They are obviously the only people (regardless of how long they have been caving) who can be trusted to enter these areas. Anyone else agree?

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 06:58 PM

They ignored the issue, they blatantly refused to look into this issue, they allowed the cache to be placed and stay active even though they were told that the location was unsuitable, they took an agreement made for the caving community and used it to their own ends.


....do you know, I having a sneaking feeling that this is not quite true :huh:, only a guess mind :(

[moote01]

Originally posted by el10t@May 25 2006, 07:22 PM
What makes geocachers lower on the intelligence scale than cavers? And also people who stumble across the caves while out walking? Are they silly enough to damage the caves too?

I think what we really need is a locked gate across the mouths of all caves that only cavers have the key to. They are obviously the only people (regardless of how long they have been caving) who can be trusted to enter these areas. Anyone else agree?
Experience is what makes the caver wiser, yes they start somewhere with none, but they learn from other cavers. How many cachers will seek an experienced caver just to add another number to their stats&#33; How many are actually experienced in underground activities including safety and conservation?

Yes unfortunately caves in some areas of the UK have been gated, not to stop cavers but to stop passing tourist, this is normally done by the landowners forbidding access because of poor relationships with passing tourist.

This means local Caving clubs, and Regional Caving Councils, have to enter into long consultation with the landowner to regain access. I personally have been involved in such issues and it usually ends up that access is only granted to people with a valid BCA insurance card and club membership.

The Geocaching community has no right at all to take another bodies negotiations and accept it covers them.

[moote01]

Think of it this way, how would the Geocaching Community feel if the good work on negotiation was ruined by another group, because they believed the negotiations gave them the rights and powers to do as they wanted&#33;

[civilised]

How many caches are in caves ?


civilised

[civilised]

moote, do you like caching ?


civilised

[moote01]

Originally posted by civilised@May 25 2006, 09:22 PM
How many caches are in caves ?

moote, do you like caching ?


civilised
Answer to the first one is too many&#33;

the second, well what a futile question&#33;

[nobbynobbs]

right....

so you claim that what you want is that moderators to take care in approving caches... well that doesn&#39;t really state what YOU want as you claim to not like the guidelines/rules so what guidelines and rules do YOU actually want.

i ask again because after saying you just want the moderators to be sensible you then criticise them for approving a cache in a cave. maybe they thought about it and decided that they thought it was ok.

so it would appear that you want them to ban all caches in caves but you are unwilling to actually write that down. if that is the case then state it and we can debate the merits of your argument.
because at the moment you appear to want to get someone else to propose the ban so as to not have to do it yourself.

and sssi&#39;s did you want a total ban on those? or not?

it&#39;s very commendable to try and keep people away for their own safety, but then that appears to be a pick up and drop argument for you as it would appear that your only irritated that caves need to be gated to keep them out. which causes irritation to you as you have to discuss with owners to get access to that cave.

just how do you propose we stop people doing very stupid things? but that is going off on a tangent and lets you avoid my main question.

PLEASE TELL US IN A SHORT COUPLE OF SENTENCES WITHOUT EMBELLISHMENT EXACTLY WHAT GUIDELINES OR RULES OR LAWS YOU ACTUALLY WANT.

thanks :)

[Muggle]

Originally posted by el10t@May 25 2006, 05:20 PM
Moote - you are doing a really good job of winding everybody up.
Oh ******, I thought it was the other way round.

Sorry. :( :( :( :(

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by Muggle+May 26 2006, 04:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Muggle @ May 26 2006, 04:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-el10t@May 25 2006, 05:20 PM
Moote - you are doing a really good job of winding everybody up.
Oh ******, I thought it was the other way round.

Sorry. :( :( :( :( [/b][/quote]
ROFL :D

[civilised]

Originally posted by moote01+May 25 2006, 10:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; May 25 2006, 10:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-civilised@May 25 2006, 09:22 PM
How many caches are in caves ?

moote, do you like caching ?


civilised
Answer to the first one is too many&#33;

the second, well what a futile question&#33;[/b][/quote]


Is there a chance you could be more specific ?

If you want to persuade anyone to your way of thinking, surely an accurate measure of the problem can only help. If there are 100 caches in caves that would suggest that the problem you see is rife; if there is one then perhaps the problem is overblown.

The second question is also relevant; for many months now you have seemed to be on a crusade against various aspects of caching - unsafe caches at heights; ammo tins; rubber gloves left in caches etc - and now caches in caves and/or on SSSIs.

If you seek to persuade others to your point of view then they need to know that you&#39;re here because you actually like caching, and not because you have some hidden agenda.

Thanks in advance


civilised

[Kitty Hawk]

Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 07:00 PM
caves are aware from experience, where and where not to step or place a hand.
Hmm, I&#39;ve been caving/potholing for 15 years and this has never cropped up before.

Next you&#39;ll be saying that the trees scream when you cut them down.

Question - do you think you are making any genuine headway here Moote, or do you think the way you put your arguments across actually pushes people to take an opposing stand?

Since your technique provokes opposition and there is a feeling you might be reasonably bright can I assume that you are aware of the reaction you cause and you don&#39;t give a monkeys about the caves and actually you get your buzz from having a debate, even at the expense of your credibility?

[Teasel]

Originally posted by moote01+May 25 2006, 04:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; May 25 2006, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
They ignored the issue, they blatantly refused to look into this issue, they allowed the cache to be placed and stay active even though they were told that the location was unsuitable[/b]
Who exactly told them it was unsuitable? Was it just you? Please remember that one of the UK approvers involved was himself a caver (before he got old and crusty&#33; :P ) and has been down this particular cave (even the difficult bits beyond the cache).


Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
they took an agreement made for the caving community and used it to their own ends.
Which agreement? With who? The geocaching community contacted the farmer to get a separate access agreement to the mouth of the cave. Granted, this took the same form as the existing agreement with the caving community, and I&#39;m sure everyone here is grateful to the cavers for setting the precedent, but I think "hijacking" is a rather inappropriate description&#33; :angry:

If any of the many landowner agreements GAGB has negotiated were subsequently used by other groups of responsible people as a basis on which to start their own separate negotiations, I think we should be flattered&#33;


Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
That is just not on, as that agreement has clauses such as 3rd party insurance.
Does the access agreement for Winnats Head Cave require 3rd party insurance? A simple yes/no will suffice. I&#39;m sure other caves exist which have more restrictive access agreemements than Winnats Head, but the cache isn&#39;t in those caves, is it?

<!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
[the people at GC.com] care little about the environmental impact, and the risk volunteers woulds take if a rescue was required.[/quote]
That may or not be true; I can&#39;t say because I&#39;ve not spoken to them. But since you&#39;re talking about the same people who invented CITO, I think the evidence is against you here.

What I can say is that the UK caching community, and its cache approvers, are generally very environmentally aware and responsible. That&#39;s why the cache has been placed in the "safe" bit of the cave, with appropriate warnings given not to venture into the more unstable portions. That&#39;s why the cache setter negotiated access with the farmer and even went to the trouble of contacting the local cave rescue organisation. That&#39;s why the geocachers who have visited took the time to carry out some cave conservation by removing large amounts of litter from deep within the cave. From the evidence I&#39;ve seen, we should be quite proud&#33;

[moote01]

Originally posted by Teasel+May 26 2006, 09:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel &#064; May 26 2006, 09:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM

They ignored the issue, they blatantly refused to look into this issue, they allowed the cache to be placed and stay active even though they were told that the location was unsuitable
Who exactly told them it was unsuitable? Was it just you? Please remember that one of the UK approvers involved was himself a caver (before he got old and crusty&#33; :P ) and has been down this particular cave (even the difficult bits beyond the cache).


Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
they took an agreement made for the caving community and used it to their own ends.
Which agreement? With who? The geocaching community contacted the farmer to get a separate access agreement to the mouth of the cave. Granted, this took the same form as the existing agreement with the caving community, and I&#39;m sure everyone here is grateful to the cavers for setting the precedent, but I think "hijacking" is a rather inappropriate description&#33; :angry:

If any of the many landowner agreements GAGB has negotiated were subsequently used by other groups of responsible people as a basis on which to start their own separate negotiations, I think we should be flattered&#33;


Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
That is just not on, as that agreement has clauses such as 3rd party insurance.
Does the access agreement for Winnats Head Cave require 3rd party insurance? A simple yes/no will suffice. I&#39;m sure other caves exist which have more restrictive access agreemements than Winnats Head, but the cache isn&#39;t in those caves, is it?

<!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
[the people at GC.com] care little about the environmental impact, and the risk volunteers woulds take if a rescue was required.
That may or not be true; I can&#39;t say because I&#39;ve not spoken to them. But since you&#39;re talking about the same people who invented CITO, I think the evidence is against you here.

What I can say is that the UK caching community, and its cache approvers, are generally very environmentally aware and responsible. That&#39;s why the cache has been placed in the "safe" bit of the cave, with appropriate warnings given not to venture into the more unstable portions. That&#39;s why the cache setter negotiated access with the farmer and even went to the trouble of contacting the local cave rescue organisation. That&#39;s why the geocachers who have visited took the time to carry out some cave conservation by removing large amounts of litter from deep within the cave. From the evidence I&#39;ve seen, we should be quite proud&#33; [/b][/quote]
The farmer does not own the cave, it is owned by a local show cave who require you to have 3rd Party insurance to enter, If you wish to make comments make sure you have the information correct&#33;

Do you know anything about caving yourself. Having been caving since 13 and been involved in cave conservation I probably am more aware than most geocachers of Caving and Cave issues.

[Bill D (wwh)]

In many forums this thread would have been locked long ago. GAGB doesn&#39;t believe in heavy moderation though, and we&#39;ve let this one run so far. There are limits, however, and over the last 24 hours this thread has gone from bad to worse.

May I ask everyone, please, to stick to the issues themselves and avoid the personal attacks that have been evident in all too many posts in this thread. Thank you.

---
Bill
Chairman, GAGB

[Paul G0TLG]

Originally posted by Bill D (wwh)@May 26 2006, 09:54 AM
...over the last 24 hours this thread has gone from bad to worse...
The chairman&#39;s right. I&#39;ve just reviewed my posts in this thread, and I&#39;ve been guilty of troll-baiting. I always promised myself I&#39;d never sink to that, however much fun it might be.

My apologies to the Chairman and to the GAGB

(Edited to change "forum" to "thread")

[dodgydaved]

Sorry, Bill :( , I&#39;ll shut up now.

[Kitty Hawk]

I would be happy to see the thread closed.

Although the subject matter is important and I think that Moote&#39;s overall points have merit hidden in there somewhere, it is futile to hope that anyone will move towards his side of the argument owing to the manner that it is put forward and the more people don&#39;t &#39;come over&#39; the more extreme Mootes argument becomes.

It is circular and doesn&#39;t seem to do anyone any good.

[t.a.folk]

it is futile to hope that anyone will move towards his side of the argument owing to the manner that it is put forward


We are prepared to stand up and be counted as NOT being against Moote in the issue conerning cave .

[Kitty Hawk]

My apologies for joining in too.

[nobbynobbs]

well i hope that nothing i have said can be misinterpretted as a personal attack but i really realy want an answer or is it never going to come moote?

this is not a personal attack it a question to clarify exactly what it is you want?

from that information it is possible to then have a sensible debate on the merits of your position.

you have said lots but don&#39;t appear to have clarified your position. so people i would ask we all sit back and take a breather and let moote state his position fully.

over to you moote.....

[Paul G0TLG]

I&#39;m not actually totally sure what Moote&#39;s point is, but...

If it&#39;s that permission for a particular cache may not have been sought from the right people, then I&#39;m with him, in that the question should be asked and answered. There&#39;s no reason it couldn&#39;t have been asked politely, however, and while I&#39;ve no evidence, I suspect from Moote&#39;s other postings that it wasn&#39;t. There seems to be a suggestion that permission has been obtained from the owner of the land required for access to the cache, but NOT from the cave owners. If that&#39;s what he&#39;s saying, I wish he&#39;d say it a bit more clearly. It might have helped if he&#39;d made that clear in the beginning, rather than making this appear to be a general thread about the guidelines.

If he&#39;s asking about the value of the UK guidelines in reviewing/approving UK caches (as seems to be the case from the thread title): Well, if a landowner chooses to make the guidelines a condition of giving permission, then they&#39;re relevant, since a cache which breaks the guidelines can be taken to NOT have landowner permission. However, if I as a landowner choose to permit a cache on my land which doesn&#39;t comply with UK guidelines (but does comply with the guidelines of whatever body is listing it), that&#39;s a different matter, although I&#39;d personally still consider the guidelines good practice. Since I don&#39;t own any land on which anyone would be likely to want to cache, it&#39;s a bit irrelevant, but hopefully you see the point I&#39;m trying to make.

If he&#39;s saying that caches should never be placed in caves, then I don&#39;t agree, since it has to depend on access agreements and permission for the individual cave.

If he&#39;s saying that caches should never be placed in any location where a hazard to the visitor exists, I definitely don&#39;t agree with that: Hazards af varying degree are everywhere, even walking down the pavement, and if we&#39;re going to set a maximum danger level for any cache to be set then we may as well all give up now.

Edited to add the bit in italics in paragraph 2

[Teasel]

Originally posted by moote01+May 25 2006, 04:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; May 25 2006, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The farmer does not own the cave, it is owned by a local show cave who require you to have 3rd Party insurance to enter[/b]
Yes, I know the farmer doesn&#39;t own the cave&#33; My question was whether the owner required 3rd Party insurance. If they do, then that&#39;s the first valid argument I&#39;ve heard against this cache.

If you can send me all the details you have on the access agreement BCA have with the show cave, I&#39;ll be sure to follow it up.

I don&#39;t accept that caches shouldn&#39;t be placed near danger; nor do I accept that all places should be off-limits because some places have sensitive features (substiute "place" with "cave", "forest", "coast", "SSSI", "SAM" or whatever you choose). But if the landowner lays down entry requirements and geocachers ignore them, then that&#39;s a danger to geocaching.

<!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
Do you know anything about caving yourself.[/quote]
I&#39;ve been on around 40 UK caving trips and spent two weeks in Austria pushing and surveying 161 Kaninchenhöhle (http://cucc.survex.com/expo/smkridge/161/top.htm). Competent at SRT, made my own lamp, knee pads and bra, and have bashed in the odd bolt in my time. One-time winner of the CUCC "Becka&#39;s Leg" award for best near-death experience of the year. :o So, granted, I&#39;m not exactly an expert, but it would be unfair to claim that I don&#39;t know anything.

[nobbynobbs]

well so much for being able to have a rational informed debate to try and see what the majority think. if it&#39;s impossible to get the instigator to state their thoughts and make a stand.

my actual thoughts are that no cache should be banned carte blanche. some sssi&#39;s are impossible to use but others fine.
some caves would be off limits some not.

i could continue.
the safety of cachers is impossible to ensure. people are daft at times and will do stuff that is dangerous. it&#39;s called life.

as long as the cache is placed with permission and adequate warnings are included in the details then they are fine by me.

i would expect that any cache placed with permisiion by a responsible owner would be monitored so that if there was an accumulation of wear and tear it could be relocated or removed.

the approvers do a hard job with very few sanctions or ability to stop bad caches as they can soon be listed on other sites. i think they have to rely on the greater community to give them heads up to potential problems.
BUT just because they don&#39;t agree or make a judgement that one or two individuals agree with does not make that judgement wrong.

hope that clarifies my thoughts to all. now i wonder if anyone who disagrees will be willing to state as clearly their opinion?

[nobbynobbs]

B) B)

[moote01]

Update on the cave cache

I have finally been in touch with the Secretary of the DCA who are the recognised negotiating body for caving in Derbyshire. It appears that the introduction of this Geocache is most unwelcome, for all the reason which OI have stated. Unfortunately this is getting Geocaching a bad name and could affect negotiations, and the DCA negotiations. As I have stated we have hijacked a caving agreement.

We are fools and we need to admit this and correct the error of your ways.



Hi David,

Been away and have only just read this. BAD IDEA&#33;&#33;&#33; Will get onto the appropriate people to get a stop put on this a.s.a.p. Thanks for alerting me. Copied this to DCA&#39;s Access Officer and to the Conservation Officer.

Jenny Potts,
DCA Hon. Secretary.Treasurer



David,
Thanks for drawing this to my attention and apologies for the delayed reply as I&#39;ve been away.

Someone else in the caving world has already spotted this and commented about it on the BCA website - the general opinion seems to be that this is not a good idea.

Some have suggested simply removing it&#33; I&#39;m concerned that, having checked out one of the links you suggested in your email, the comments from the people who have found this geocache indicate they think that cavers are responsible for the mess and rubbish. We&#39;re NOT&#33; We spend a good deal of time clearing up the mess and rubbish that the general public and adventurous idiots leave around in caves so it won&#39;t go down well for us to be acused of making the mess in the first place. (I can&#39;t access one ofthe sites referred to since I am not registered to logon.)

Winnatts Head cave is a singularly stupid place to do this as it&#39;s notoriously unstable and we certainly don&#39;t want to upset the farmer.

I shall take it up at the next DCA meeting, on July1st., and we will see if members want to take some formal action to prevent this happening again - either in the Peak or anywhere else. It&#39;s one thing for individual cavers to disapprove (which I and many others do) and another to ask DCA to act formally. Is there some central body amongst geocachers we can contact to take action and ask that this not be done again? What is Geocaching.com? Thanks for your help.

Jenny Potts,
DCA Hon. Secretary

[nobbynobbs]

so you have approached a seperate body and portrayed the caching community in a negative manner?
as the rubbish could only have come from the rest of us not irresponsible cavers or just maybe people who do neither sport?

but then your object is to force the issue and make someone else make the decision to have all cave caches banned without actually saying that is your target.

come out of the closet and actaully tell us if that is your intent. if you feel that strongly stop hiding. i disagree with your carte blanche idea to ban them all. but then we don&#39;t have your experience or knowledge do we?

i think you need to have a sit down and really think if you feel able to carry on caching if you think that we are all so bad for the enviroment or maybe you are hanging around in a beneficial manner to save us from ourselves&#33;

so for the i don&#39;t know how many times... please do the honours of clearly stating what you actually want to acheive with these tactics.

[Wood Smoke]

Who asked you to represent our views with the DCA????????

Surely a better way would have been to pass the info onto GAGB and let them represent us............after that is their job...............not yours&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

But of course, your objective is to slag off Geocaching, and GAGB wouldn&#39;t have done that&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Please go away and find another hobby to annoy, you&#39;re ******* all of us off now.

WoodSmoke

[Kitty Hawk]

Sounds like you advised them in a careful and balanced manner designed not to cause undue fuss and concern while at the same time airing a valid concern with a view to ensuring that rational thought and consideration prevails.

[moote01]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs@Jun 10 2006, 03:43 AM
so you have approached a seperate body and portrayed the caching community in a negative manner?
as the rubbish could only have come from the rest of us not irresponsible cavers or just maybe people who do neither sport?

but then your object is to force the issue and make someone else make the decision to have all cave caches banned without actually saying that is your target.

come out of the closet and actaully tell us if that is your intent. if you feel that strongly stop hiding. i disagree with your carte blanche idea to ban them all. but then we don&#39;t have your experience or knowledge do we?

i think you need to have a sit down and really think if you feel able to carry on caching if you think that we are all so bad for the enviroment or maybe you are hanging around in a beneficial manner to save us from ourselves&#33;

so for the i don&#39;t know how many times... please do the honours of clearly stating what you actually want to acheive with these tactics.
No the cachers were negative about cavers; read the cach logs.

Caves are not playgrounds, they are a natural asset, not to be poluted by human introduced items

If you read you will see my points, they are spelt out clearly. eg cachers have no right to take others agreemments as their own

[moote01]

Originally posted by Wood Smoke@Jun 10 2006, 05:11 AM
Who asked you to represent our views with the DCA????????

Surely a better way would have been to pass the info onto GAGB and let them represent us............after that is their job...............not yours&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

But of course, your objective is to slag off Geocaching, and GAGB wouldn&#39;t have done that&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Please go away and find another hobby to annoy, you&#39;re ******* all of us off now.

WoodSmoke
So you don&#39;t think I should have a voice. Who are you to stop me speaking. This is a free country I&#39;ii say and talk to who I like&#33;

Shame you have to resort to threatening behavour.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Kitty Hawk@Jun 10 2006, 06:37 AM
Sounds like you advised them in a careful and balanced manner designed not to cause undue fuss and concern while at the same time airing a valid concern with a view to ensuring that rational thought and consideration prevails.
I placed the same rational case which I used in this and the GC.com forum. It is just these people see the issues as a serious matter. I know many might not like or agree with what I am doing; but that is their issue and not mine.

Caching has placed the issue clearly on the caving agenda; surely this says a lot about the validity of the cache.

[el10t]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 10 2006, 11:05 AM
Caves are not playgrounds, they are a natural asset, not to be poluted by human introduced items

Quite right&#33; I am going to campaign to get all cavers banned from this and any other cave since they use them as playgrounds.

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 10 2006, 11:10 AM

Shame you have to resort to threatening behavour.
.......be VERY careful who YOU accuse of being threatening Grimshaw :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:..............


.............does this look a familair phrase?

"If you do not have this archived I will have to take the matter further."


................now, THAT&#39;S a threat :angry:

[Chris n Maria]

I know many might not like or agree with what I am doing; but that is their issue and not mine.


Hmmmm...

May I sugest some light reading (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0671723650/026-0940834-8457215?v=glance&n=283155).

[Paul G0TLG]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 10 2006, 11:05 AM
Caves are not playgrounds, they are a natural asset, not to be poluted by human introduced items
If that&#39;s true - and of course, to an extent it is - then the same is true of Dartmoor, Exmoor, Mount Snowdon, etc ad infinitum. That doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that we shouldn&#39;t cache there.

[t.a.folk]

We only have knowledge of this issue from what has been posted on public postings .
From those postings we cannot see where from where the conclusion came that Moote is out to harm caching .
Our conclusin is far from that&#33;

We feel Moote you are more or less being "asked "to put up and shut up or get out .

Is that the way things are done?

[t.a.folk]

"If you do not have this archived I will have to take the matter further."


By our reckoning that is a statement of intent ..not a threat .

[Kitty Hawk]

Whether or not we agree with you has ceased to be the point, possibly it was never the point. The problem is with you, your manner of communication and your apparent superiority complex.

As always there are a variety of means at your disposal for getting things done.

You choose a fairly aggressive, manipulative and condescending fashion of communicating and then feign surprise when people don&#39;t rush to your support.

A N Other could have posted the same message in a benign, informative and open fashion and successfully achieved result you strive for, but with none of the discord.

The other problem you have is that you have openly admitted to people that you enjoy the effect your approach has on people.

Enjoy away.

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by t.a.folk@Jun 10 2006, 09:39 PM
"If you do not have this archived I will have to take the matter further."


By our reckoning that is a statement of intent ..not a threat .
Semantics.


A statement of intent could be beneficial or malevolent.

In this case I believe it to have been most surely malevolent.

That is a threat.

A threat directed at a person who has been most positive in his dealings with both cachers and others.

It was unworthy. :angry:

[nobbynobbs]

Originally posted by moote01+Jun 10 2006, 12:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 @ Jun 10 2006, 12:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nobbynobbs@Jun 10 2006, 03:43 AM
so you have approached a seperate body and portrayed the caching community in a negative manner?
as the rubbish could only have come from the rest of us not irresponsible cavers or just maybe people who do neither sport?

but then your object is to force the issue and make someone else make the decision to have all cave caches banned without actually saying that is your target.

come out of the closet and actaully tell us if that is your intent. if you feel that strongly stop hiding. i disagree with your carte blanche idea to ban them all. but then we don&#39;t have your experience or knowledge do we?

i think you need to have a sit down and really think if you feel able to carry on caching if you think that we are all so bad for the enviroment or maybe you are hanging around in a beneficial manner to save us from ourselves&#33;

so for the i don&#39;t know how many times... please do the honours of clearly stating what you actually want to acheive with these tactics.
No the cachers were negative about cavers; read the cach logs.

Caves are not playgrounds, they are a natural asset, not to be poluted by human introduced items

If you read you will see my points, they are spelt out clearly. eg cachers have no right to take others agreemments as their own [/b][/quote]
yes moote i have read your points but at no point have you actually said that your intention is to get all cahes banned from all caves. so is that your aim? a simple yes or no will suffice.....

i am also assuming that you will immediately cease caving? or is it that cavers are more able to guarentee that all cavers will not sully the pristine cave? surely that is as big an assumption as that cachers aren&#39;t able.

lets not worry about who accused who as that is irrelevant. or who took what agreement as again not relevant.

what is relevant is that you have approached a body suggesting that cachers are not to be trusted to venture into the delicate world of the cave because, unlike cavers, we are irresponsible and destructive.

but again that is an assumption because you like to just use illusions and inference not hard stated facts.

wonder if you will have the balls to stand up for what you believe and state that you are against all cave/ all sssi/ all nature reserve/ all english nature/ national trust..... caches please delete as you see fit.

i await being able to know exactly for what you stand.

[t.a.folk]

".......be VERY careful who YOU accuse of being threatening Grimshaw .............."

That on a public forum reads to us like a threat .
We would take it as such if it was directed at us.


edited to add speech marks around the quote .

[The Wombles]

Abuse and personal attacks are not tolerated on this forum. I would ask everyone to consider their postings carefully with this in mind.

[el10t]

Originally posted by t.a.folk@Jun 11 2006, 08:51 AM
We would take it as such if it was directed at us.

Well it obviously wasn&#39;t aimed at you (the hint is that a name was mentioned in it) so calm down.

[Cave Troll &amp; Joan]

From what i heard today the cache in question has been removed by persons unknown&#33;&#33;&#33;

[moote01]

Originally posted by dodgydaved@Jun 10 2006, 03:06 PM


"If you do not have this archived I will have to take the matter further."


................now, THAT&#39;S a threat :angry:
Yes I took it to the DCA, it is not my fault the UK approver translated an agreement, made by Cavers, for Cavers was hijacked by their very ill thought out logic.

And FYI a cacher actually had an accident in this cave this weekend. That is not good, if geocaching starts to gain bad press for caving then I&#39;m afraid, you are ruining other peoples hobbies.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Jun 10 2006, 08:18 PM

I know many might not like or agree with what I am doing; but that is their issue and not mine.


Hmmmm...

May I sugest some light reading (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0671723650/026-0940834-8457215?v=glance&n=283155).
Yes&#33; maybe your jokes, are as cutting as my remarks, but my remarks are about a serious issue, shame you have no serious side

[moote01]

Originally posted by Paul G0TLG+Jun 10 2006, 09:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Paul G0TLG @ Jun 10 2006, 09:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@Jun 10 2006, 11:05 AM
Caves are not playgrounds, they are a natural asset, not to be poluted by human introduced items
If that&#39;s true - and of course, to an extent it is - then the same is true of Dartmoor, Exmoor, Mount Snowdon, etc ad infinitum. That doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that we shouldn&#39;t cache there. [/b][/quote]
Fortunately caves actually are protected in UK law, there are bodies which over see there upkeep, so they are far different in that respect.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Kitty Hawk@Jun 10 2006, 10:46 PM
Whether or not we agree with you has ceased to be the point, possibly it was never the point. The problem is with you, your manner of communication and your apparent superiority complex.

As always there are a variety of means at your disposal for getting things done.

You choose a fairly aggressive, manipulative and condescending fashion of communicating and then feign surprise when people don&#39;t rush to your support.

A N Other could have posted the same message in a benign, informative and open fashion and successfully achieved result you strive for, but with none of the discord.

The other problem you have is that you have openly admitted to people that you enjoy the effect your approach has on people.

Enjoy away.
Here is a fact, I started an innocent post in the Goecaching.com forums, everyone was agreeing, then a Forum moderator decided he would post and made it personal. I got attacked first, I had to defend.

[moote01]

Originally posted by dodgydaved+Jun 10 2006, 11:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dodgydaved @ Jun 10 2006, 11:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-t.a.folk@Jun 10 2006, 09:39 PM
"If you do not have this archived I will have to take the matter further."


By our reckoning that is a statement of intent ..not a threat .
Semantics.


A statement of intent could be beneficial or malevolent.

In this case I believe it to have been most surely malevolent.

That is a threat.

A threat directed at a person who has been most positive in his dealings with both cachers and others.

It was unworthy. :angry: [/b][/quote]
Manipulation of facts, that is what is happening, quoting out of context

[moote01]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs+Jun 11 2006, 05:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nobbynobbs @ Jun 11 2006, 05:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by moote01@Jun 10 2006, 12:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-nobbynobbs@Jun 10 2006, 03:43 AM
so you have approached a seperate body and portrayed the caching community in a negative manner?
as the rubbish could only have come from the rest of us not irresponsible cavers or just maybe people who do neither sport?

but then your object is to force the issue and make someone else make the decision to have all cave caches banned without actually saying that is your target.

come out of the closet and actaully tell us if that is your intent. if you feel that strongly stop hiding. i disagree with your carte blanche idea to ban them all. but then we don&#39;t have your experience or knowledge do we?

i think you need to have a sit down and really think if you feel able to carry on caching if you think that we are all so bad for the enviroment or maybe you are hanging around in a beneficial manner to save us from ourselves&#33;

so for the i don&#39;t know how many times... please do the honours of clearly stating what you actually want to acheive with these tactics.
No the cachers were negative about cavers; read the cach logs.

Caves are not playgrounds, they are a natural asset, not to be poluted by human introduced items

If you read you will see my points, they are spelt out clearly. eg cachers have no right to take others agreemments as their own
yes moote i have read your points but at no point have you actually said that your intention is to get all cahes banned from all caves. so is that your aim? a simple yes or no will suffice.....

i am also assuming that you will immediately cease caving? or is it that cavers are more able to guarentee that all cavers will not sully the pristine cave? surely that is as big an assumption as that cachers aren&#39;t able.

lets not worry about who accused who as that is irrelevant. or who took what agreement as again not relevant.

what is relevant is that you have approached a body suggesting that cachers are not to be trusted to venture into the delicate world of the cave because, unlike cavers, we are irresponsible and destructive.

but again that is an assumption because you like to just use illusions and inference not hard stated facts.

wonder if you will have the balls to stand up for what you believe and state that you are against all cave/ all sssi/ all nature reserve/ all english nature/ national trust..... caches please delete as you see fit.

i await being able to know exactly for what you stand. [/b][/quote]
Under the Environment Protection act they actually have no right to be placed

[moote01]

I do believe that within caving circles the practice of Geocaches underground has lead to cavers investigating to remove these. To say they are not amused with their access negotiations being used for the purpose of Geocaching.

The fact that we are doing this is bad, and ultimately will make other Bodies see that Geocachers, just do what the heII they like, and when they like.

So if you want to start to lose access agreements start thinking what you are supporting.

[moote01]

OK, all you pro cave cache Cachers

Answer this either Yes or No

Should Geocachers be able to just use another organisations negotiated access agreement, without any prior consultation with that organisation?

If you answer yes please can you expand on your reasoning

[Chris n Maria]

Originally posted by moote01+Jun 11 2006, 04:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 @ Jun 11 2006, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Chris n Maria@Jun 10 2006, 08:18 PM

I know many might not like or agree with what I am doing; but that is their issue and not mine.


Hmmmm...

May I sugest some light reading (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0671723650/026-0940834-8457215?v=glance&n=283155).
Yes&#33; maybe your jokes, are as cutting as my remarks, but my remarks are about a serious issue, shame you have no serious side [/b][/quote]
Oh but dear moote I was being so very very serious :(

[moote01]

Originally posted by Chris n Maria+Jun 11 2006, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chris n Maria @ Jun 11 2006, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 04:32 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Chris n Maria@Jun 10 2006, 08:18 PM

I know many might not like or agree with what I am doing; but that is their issue and not mine.


Hmmmm...

May I sugest some light reading (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0671723650/026-0940834-8457215?v=glance&n=283155).
Yes&#33; maybe your jokes, are as cutting as my remarks, but my remarks are about a serious issue, shame you have no serious side
Oh but dear moote I was being so very very serious :( [/b][/quote]
http://www.rockingham.k12.va.us/sound_sorting/initial_consonants/y/images/yawn.jpg

As seen as you don&#39;t actually know me, it is a cheek that you make fun of me in what is a serious issue. Maybe you could actually add something constructive, in stead of tom foolery&#33;

[Mongoose39uk]

Moote,

We have all heard your ramblings ad infinitum. You may be right. However you will never accept you are wrong even if you are and know it.

You have been repeatedly asked what it is you want and repeatedly choose to ignore the question.

Be a man and stand up and answer a very simple question in a very simple straightforward way.

In my opinion caver shave no right to dictate who has access to caves only the owners and the appropriate government authorities. In exactly the same way as a climbing club has no right to dictate who can and cannot go on a hill.

Also be man enough to put up the emails you sent so that people can at least judge the replies in context.

The cave is dangerous that&#39;s not an issue. It is clearly designated an 5/5 . You have to make a decision about your confidence in your abilities to do it. If I choose to do it that is my decision not yours.

I have been climbing and caving for many years as have many other cachers. I choose not to do it anymore but am damn sure you are not gonna tell me if i can or not.

As for permission the landowner takes peoples money and lets them wander off. From memory I was never asked if i was experienced underground or not.

Cavers have been responsible for much of the damage underground, look at the cooling towers in Lancaster. Look to your own club and look at the damage that has been caused by them in the past both over and underground. The evidence is there on your own clubs website.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 06:21 PM
Moote,

We have all heard your ramblings ad infinitum. You may be right. However you will never accept you are wrong even if you are and know it.

You have been repeatedly asked what it is you want and repeatedly choose to ignore the question.

Be a man and stand up and answer a very simple question in a very simple straightforward way.

In my opinion caver shave no right to dictate who has access to caves only the owners and the appropriate government authorities. In exactly the same way as a climbing club has no right to dictate who can and cannot go on a hill.

Also be man enough to put up the emails you sent so that people can at least judge the replies in context.

The cave is dangerous that&#39;s not an issue. It is clearly designated an 5/5 . You have to make a decision about your confidence in your abilities to do it. If I choose to do it that is my decision not yours.

I have been climbing and caving for many years as have many other cachers. I choose not to do it anymore but am damn sure you are not gonna tell me if i can or not.

As for permission the landowner takes peoples money and lets them wander off. From memory I was never asked if i was experienced underground or not.

Cavers have been responsible for much of the damage underground, look at the cooling towers in Lancaster. Look to your own club and look at the damage that has been caused by them in the past both over and underground. The evidence is there on your own clubs website.
This is utter rubbish&#33;

1. If a Geocacher has a serious injury within what is one of the Uk&#39;s most geologically unstable caves, Who has to pull them out risking their lives. Cavers, and they do not get a penny in return.

2. Why should a dry stone wall or SAM be treated different to an SSSI. Every Cacher is up in arms if a cache is in a Dry stone wall. Shame they only have these feelings for the man made world, obviously nature is not important to Geocachers.

3. Stealing others hard won agreements, is bad and if as a committee member you feel this is OK, then I&#39;m afraid this moral ground, what bodies the GAGB negotiate, will do you all harm in future negotiations.

What do I want? It is clear, SSSI status should be given greater consideration by the UK reviewers, as the GAGB guidelines state:



No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

If you can&#39;t sing from the GAGB hymn sheet, how can the GAGB be trusted to negotiate, the GAGB is looking foolish here, as you can&#39;t support your own Guidelines, I guess this will look good for future negotiations, as you are singly placing the GAGB into self destruct.

It is high time that the committee took issues like this seriously. It is one thing being a body, but it is another when the body takes an issue by its horns and rides it to conclusion.

This is not about dictation, and the DCA to whom this matter is now on their agenda, are the officially recognised body in the area concerned, yes that is by the UK Government.

It actually looks and is deserved in my eyes that Geocaching has gotten itself a bad name.

I fully support a ban on all caches placed in sensitive SSSI&#39;s this would include most but not all caves

[Mongoose39uk]

Now ask yourself if you asnswered a single question

[Mongoose39uk]

You were on the comittee&#33;

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 06:21 PM
Moote,

We have all heard your ramblings ad infinitum. You may be right. However you will never accept you are wrong even if you are and know it.

You have been repeatedly asked what it is you want and repeatedly choose to ignore the question.

Be a man and stand up and answer a very simple question in a very simple straightforward way.

In my opinion caver shave no right to dictate who has access to caves only the owners and the appropriate government authorities. In exactly the same way as a climbing club has no right to dictate who can and cannot go on a hill.

Also be man enough to put up the emails you sent so that people can at least judge the replies in context.

The cave is dangerous that&#39;s not an issue. It is clearly designated an 5/5 . You have to make a decision about your confidence in your abilities to do it. If I choose to do it that is my decision not yours.

I have been climbing and caving for many years as have many other cachers. I choose not to do it anymore but am damn sure you are not gonna tell me if i can or not.

As for permission the landowner takes peoples money and lets them wander off. From memory I was never asked if i was experienced underground or not.

Cavers have been responsible for much of the damage underground, look at the cooling towers in Lancaster. Look to your own club and look at the damage that has been caused by them in the past both over and underground. The evidence is there on your own clubs website.
As for Lancaster Hole, that is historical from the 50&#39;s and 60&#39;s these days things are different, look back at how society has changed and don&#39;t try and blame modern cavers for historic errors, most of us cave for scientific reasons, as do I.

Email sent to the DCA

Hello

I am writing to you as you are the Regional Body for caving within the Peak District.

I am a caver, and for my sins also a Geocacher, recently I have noted that a Geocache has been placed quite deep inside Winnats Head Cave.

Now I see this as a problem on several counts and I will list the reasons here:

1. A stream of none cavers, entering what in effect is a Grade V cave is a potential disaster waiting to happen

2. Caves are in no way playgrounds, they are serious environments and should not be trivialised

3. This could put members of the DCRO at unnecessary risk, if unskilled people require assistance

4. It could jeopardise future access negotiations both Local and national

5. People without the correct knowledge of cave could cause irreparable damage

6. I have a strong belief that human introduced items should be kept to a minimum for conservation reasons

7. Any increase in requests to visit to the landowner at Winnats Head Farm could upset access I would be happy if you would contact me about these issues, I can be contacted on: 0777 XXX XXXX or via email.


A link to the Geocache page is here

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...05-ea8bbcb9451d (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=fe097db6-8b4a-48fa-ae05-ea8bbcb9451d)

I do hope that you might be able to help me liaise with the people at Geocaching.com, and get the Geocache in question archived for all the reasons above there contact details are:

contact@groundspeak.com Main site contact address

Lactodorum@gmail.com UK reviewer

Thanks for taking your time with this matter

Dave Grimshaw

[Mongoose39uk]

I will also clarify that this is my response not the response of the committee.

[paul.blitz]

I will admit that, over the last few weeks, I&#39;ve been rather busy, so simply haven&#39;t been reading the GAGB forums.... and boy have the forums got busy&#33;&#33;

Ok, so some simple thoughts:

- if one believes that caves are "something special", then why do cavers think that they, and they alone, have a right to access the caves?... I&#39;m sure, like cachers, hill-walkers, ramblers, or whatever, that whilst the *majority* of cavers are good, experienced etc etc, there will be a *minority* who are NOT experienced nor as careful, and this small number of cavers could cause (knowingly, or unknowingly) damage. The only safe solution is to stop ANYONE from going into the caves, lest damage is caused.

- in the case of this specific cache: several cachers have visited, and all appear to have taken good precautions (as one would expect with a 5* cache). Now, several of these cachers have removed rubbish (for which the caving community should be grateful, I would have thought). The cavers say they would not have created the rubbish (and I would believe that, in the same way that I would believe that any cacher would not have dropped the rubbish either).... which means that SOMEONE ELSE has been to that cave. Someone who is NOT aware of "protocol"... if anyone is *more likely* to cause damage to caves, get injured, die etc etc, then THEY are the ones. (OK, I accept that even "specialists" can have problems: to be honest, how many "non-cavers" vs "cavers" have accidents in caves? ... of course, I&#39;m screwing with statistic here&#33;)

- guidelines are what they say... and there will be many examples of when guidelines may legitimately be broken. Let me create some "silly" examples: I&#39;m sure that the countryside code says something like "if you go through a closed gate, close it again after you." If I know the land, the owner etc, and I use that gate to visit them, I may (quite legitimately) decide NOT to close that gate after me. I would be breaking the countryside code&#33; Next silly example: I build a dry stone wall on my land, specifically to hide a cache in. This breaks the GAGB cache-placement guidelines, but is CLEARLY ok. I *did* say they were SILLY examples, but still quite legit&#33;


As others have stated, there is nothing *per-se* that globally prevents a cache being placed on (a) private land; (B) Dodgy Dave&#39;s front garden; &copy; an SSSI... but in ALL cases, to remain legal, the cache must have the "relevant permissions". In the case of (a) there may be more than 1 permission needed (eg leased land may need owner and leasee permission); in the case of &copy; you may need more than just the landowner&#39;s say-so... in BOTH cases it depends on the specifics of the site.


Now, back to caves. Wikipedia defines a cave as: "a natural underground void large enough for an adult human to enter. Some scientists stipulate that it must be large enough that some portion of it will not receive daylight; however, in popular usage, the term includes smaller spaces like cliff cavities, rock shelters and sea caves".

If I go down to the seaside, in some areas I will find, along the cliffs, places that are clearly "caves".... and in many cases, there is absolutely nothing special about these caves. In *principle*, what would be the issue in placing a cache in such a place? There is nothing to damage (if there was, it will have long since been eroded by the sea&#33;&#33;&#33;). So even the concept of "lets have a blanket ban on placing caches in caves" would fail to be sensible. As with ALL places, it has to be taken *in context*.


When placing a cache, as with almost ANY activity, a person can believe all permissions have been obtained, but a mistake can be made. In that case, the placement of the cache will have to be reviewed by all involved (I&#39;m thinking more of the "wronged landowner": after all, the person missed in getting permissions may well be very happy to permit the cache).

And if all the "legally relevant people" HAVE given permission, then what right does ANY OTHER PERSON have to decide to remove that cache: in the case of the cited cave cache, *if* the cacher *has* full permissions to place the cache, then *anyone* who removes a cache without permissions is a simple thief.... it doesn&#39;t matter what THEY feel abouth things at all&#33;&#33;&#33; And *if* the cacher *does not* have the correct permissions, then surely it up to the LANDOWNER to "organise removal"?


Wow, that ended up a bit longer than I anticipated&#33;


Paul

[Mongoose39uk]

Not all the damage is historical. Please read your own clubs website. Some fairly recent examples of opening new entrances.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 07:02 PM
You were on the comittee&#33;
Was, yes, and I took this and tried to move on it, but people did not like me raising serious issues so they ran and told the teacher&#33; Just like kids do at school, none of you were man enough to email me direct.

Did I answer the questions, I think I did and made it so clear.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 07:07 PM
Not all the damage is historical. Please read your own clubs website. Some fairly recent examples of opening new entrances.
Yes I have opened caves in the recent past, but we do not damage formations, be careful you might even get the backs of the DCA and BCA up further.

We do actually consider the impact. You have limited caving experience so I would guess your knowledge of this kind of work is minimal.

[Mongoose39uk]

No issue at all about serious issues being raised in an appropriate and considered manner. This being in a constructive way.

Your email misses out any discussion that had already taken place.

[Mongoose39uk]

You have no idea what caving experience I have.

[moote01]

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jun 11 2006, 07:06 PM
I will admit that, over the last few weeks, I&#39;ve been rather busy, so simply haven&#39;t been reading the GAGB forums.... and boy have the forums got busy&#33;&#33;

Ok, so some simple thoughts:

- if one believes that caves are "something special", then why do cavers think that they, and they alone, have a right to access the caves?... I&#39;m sure, like cachers, hill-walkers, ramblers, or whatever, that whilst the *majority* of cavers are good, experienced etc etc, there will be a *minority* who are NOT experienced nor as careful, and this small number of cavers could cause (knowingly, or unknowingly) damage. The only safe solution is to stop ANYONE from going into the caves, lest damage is caused.

- in the case of this specific cache: several cachers have visited, and all appear to have taken good precautions (as one would expect with a 5* cache). Now, several of these cachers have removed rubbish (for which the caving community should be grateful, I would have thought). The cavers say they would not have created the rubbish (and I would believe that, in the same way that I would believe that any cacher would not have dropped the rubbish either).... which means that SOMEONE ELSE has been to that cave. Someone who is NOT aware of "protocol"... if anyone is *more likely* to cause damage to caves, get injured, die etc etc, then THEY are the ones. (OK, I accept that even "specialists" can have problems: to be honest, how many "non-cavers" vs "cavers" have accidents in caves? ... of course, I&#39;m screwing with statistic here&#33;)

- guidelines are what they say... and there will be many examples of when guidelines may legitimately be broken. Let me create some "silly" examples: I&#39;m sure that the countryside code says something like "if you go through a closed gate, close it again after you." If I know the land, the owner etc, and I use that gate to visit them, I may (quite legitimately) decide NOT to close that gate after me. I would be breaking the countryside code&#33; Next silly example: I build a dry stone wall on my land, specifically to hide a cache in. This breaks the GAGB cache-placement guidelines, but is CLEARLY ok. I *did* say they were SILLY examples, but still quite legit&#33;


As others have stated, there is nothing *per-se* that globally prevents a cache being placed on (a) private land; (B) Dodgy Dave&#39;s front garden; © an SSSI... but in ALL cases, to remain legal, the cache must have the "relevant permissions". In the case of (a) there may be more than 1 permission needed (eg leased land may need owner and leasee permission); in the case of © you may need more than just the landowner&#39;s say-so... in BOTH cases it depends on the specifics of the site.


Now, back to caves. Wikipedia defines a cave as: "a natural underground void large enough for an adult human to enter. Some scientists stipulate that it must be large enough that some portion of it will not receive daylight; however, in popular usage, the term includes smaller spaces like cliff cavities, rock shelters and sea caves".

If I go down to the seaside, in some areas I will find, along the cliffs, places that are clearly "caves".... and in many cases, there is absolutely nothing special about these caves. In *principle*, what would be the issue in placing a cache in such a place? There is nothing to damage (if there was, it will have long since been eroded by the sea&#33;&#33;&#33;). So even the concept of "lets have a blanket ban on placing caches in caves" would fail to be sensible. As with ALL places, it has to be taken *in context*.


When placing a cache, as with almost ANY activity, a person can believe all permissions have been obtained, but a mistake can be made. In that case, the placement of the cache will have to be reviewed by all involved (I&#39;m thinking more of the "wronged landowner": after all, the person missed in getting permissions may well be very happy to permit the cache).

And if all the "legally relevant people" HAVE given permission, then what right does ANY OTHER PERSON have to decide to remove that cache: in the case of the cited cave cache, *if* the cacher *has* full permissions to place the cache, then *anyone* who removes a cache without permissions is a simple thief.... it doesn&#39;t matter what THEY feel abouth things at all&#33;&#33;&#33; And *if* the cacher *does not* have the correct permissions, then surely it up to the LANDOWNER to "organise removal"?


Wow, that ended up a bit longer than I anticipated&#33;


Paul
Paul

To answer short and sweet here, the UK reviewer hijacked a 3rd party agreement, the way that the UK reviewer mind worked was, "there is and agreement on the caving database, so that covers us" No it does not.

If you think your agreements are easy try arranging caving ones, they can involved many people from many organisations, many these days stipulate that you require insurance for the activity to cover 3rd party injury and issues arising from possible problems.

The cache in question has not had the cave owners agreement Full Stop.

As for a statistical skew, most but not all accidents underground are usually due to inexperience. Yes more cavers have accidents than none cavers, but, the point you make is somewhat green&#33;

If Guidelines are what they say, then cachers should not moan when a cache is in a Dry stone wall, full stop&#33; If you feel your guidelines are worthless like this, then they are, you as a committee member should work and live by them, again the committee places itself in a position which could compromise future access.

Maybe by cave, I should say underground Karst geology. But any senseertive SSSI should be treated with respect.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 07:16 PM
You have no idea what caving experience I have.
YOu have told me that you had done a little, but not much. I have 30 years and have caved internationally

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 07:15 PM
No issue at all about serious issues being raised in an appropriate and considered manner. This being in a constructive way.

Your email misses out any discussion that had already taken place.
What discussion? It is just a war in here where I defend myself and others attack&#33;

The reviewers on GC.com perverted my thread there, and many have on here. It is becoming personal against me. Now that is a breach of the forum

[Mongoose39uk]

No I did not. I actually have quite a bit of experience and have been involved in cave rescues. I made a decision several years ago not to cave anymore as I no longer feel confident underground.

I would not do that cache for that reason.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 07:34 PM
No I did not. I actually have quite a bit of experience and have been involved in cave rescues. I made a decision several years ago not to cave anymore as I no longer feel confident underground.

I would not do that cache for that reason.
Whistling another tune

[Mongoose39uk]

Please explain.

[Kitty Hawk]

Originally posted by moote01+Jun 11 2006, 04:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 @ Jun 11 2006, 04:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Kitty Hawk@Jun 10 2006, 10:46 PM
Whether or not we agree with you has ceased to be the point, possibly it was never the point. The problem is with you, your manner of communication and your apparent superiority complex.

As always there are a variety of means at your disposal for getting things done.

You choose a fairly aggressive, manipulative and condescending fashion of communicating and then feign surprise when people don&#39;t rush to your support.

A N Other could have posted the same message in a benign, informative and open fashion and successfully achieved result you strive for, but with none of the discord.

The other problem you have is that you have openly admitted to people that you enjoy the effect your approach has on people.

Enjoy away.
Here is a fact, I started an innocent post in the Goecaching.com forums, everyone was agreeing, then a Forum moderator decided he would post and made it personal. I got attacked first, I had to defend. [/b][/quote]
Disagree with you there. You started a topic, but nobody thinks it was innocent.

You were having a private correspondance with the reviewers. You then decided to air your views giving only an abbreviated version of your side of events in order to create a forum situation that you could use as a lever on the reviewers.

What you didn&#39;t anticipate was that the reviewer stood up for himself.

Now, from my vantage point, I see someone who has the above history and another person who has, in the 30 months I&#39;ve been visiting the forums shown himself to be patient and equable at every turn. This is, as far as I know, is a kind of universal feeling and you then alienated yourself and the results are for all to see.

The issue is one that is easy to understand and I believe you understand it too.

The reviewers are tasked to review caches by GC.com, a US based website who have tried to create useful worldwide guidelines to help with cache registration on their website. They have one &#39;master&#39;, GC.com and they review caches based on GC.com guidelines.

Then there is a UK body who has their own set of local guidelines. You know, from being an ex commitee member that GAGB don&#39;t have &#39;authority&#39; to override GC.com on GC.com&#39;s own website.

So from there, approaching a GC.com reviewer was the wrong thing to do - in that it was never going to be effective - You were saying "this doesn&#39;t comply with guidelines" and he was saying "it does comply with GC.com guidelines" - the ones he is there to approve.

The more effective form of action would be to talk about it in the GAGB meetings and sort it out from there, relying on goodwill and common sense which would have most likely worked - you are right to point out there was general agreement on your topic until it transpired that there was more to it than you were letting on.

You will, and probably have, said that there was no permission from the landowner - well, the reviewers are not there to check the permissions, they rely on the cache setter to confirm this and as far as the cache setter is/was aware he did. Job done.

So there is a grey area, grey is dealt with by common sense and goodwill. There is plenty of grey - SSSI&#39;s for instance should be looked after, but not all are so sensitive that you can&#39;t cache on them but some are. It&#39;s grey, seeking to make it black and white will be using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It&#39;s just a common sense issue and like the (ex)cache in question common sense would have resolved this.

As a ex caver myself, albeit only at club level, I know that cavers don&#39;t fill caves with litter, that point was used to respond to one of yours and what gets forgotten is that the cachers did remove the rubbish. I also would guess that there are rogue, "common sense reduced" cavers and responsible cavers. As a cacher, I also know that most cachers have green issues and safety issues towards the top of their priorities, I believe you know this also, although, like in all communities, there are a few who are unaware of some issues.

My recommendation would be for you to introduce the DCA and the GAGB, in an even handed way as you can manage and then step back. Hopefully the issue is not too inflamed to be resolved in a way that doesn&#39;t do damage to caves, cachers in caves and geocaching in general.

[Mongoose39uk]

Originally posted by Kitty Hawk+Jun 11 2006, 08:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kitty Hawk @ Jun 11 2006, 08:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 04:38 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Kitty Hawk@Jun 10 2006, 10:46 PM
Whether or not we agree with you has ceased to be the point, possibly it was never the point. The problem is with you, your manner of communication and your apparent superiority complex.

As always there are a variety of means at your disposal for getting things done.

You choose a fairly aggressive, manipulative and condescending fashion of communicating and then feign surprise when people don&#39;t rush to your support.

A N Other could have posted the same message in a benign, informative and open fashion and successfully achieved result you strive for, but with none of the discord.

The other problem you have is that you have openly admitted to people that you enjoy the effect your approach has on people.

Enjoy away.
Here is a fact, I started an innocent post in the Goecaching.com forums, everyone was agreeing, then a Forum moderator decided he would post and made it personal. I got attacked first, I had to defend.
Disagree with you there. You started a topic, but nobody thinks it was innocent.

You were having a private correspondance with the reviewers. You then decided to air your views giving only an abbreviated version of your side of events in order to create a forum situation that you could use as a lever on the reviewers.

What you didn&#39;t anticipate was that the reviewer stood up for himself.

Now, from my vantage point, I see someone who has the above history and another person who has, in the 30 months I&#39;ve been visiting the forums shown himself to be patient and equable at every turn. This is, as far as I know, is a kind of universal feeling and you then alienated yourself and the results are for all to see.

The issue is one that is easy to understand and I believe you understand it too.

The reviewers are tasked to review caches by GC.com, a US based website who have tried to create useful worldwide guidelines to help with cache registration on their website. They have one &#39;master&#39;, GC.com and they review caches based on GC.com guidelines.

Then there is a UK body who has their own set of local guidelines. You know, from being an ex commitee member that GAGB don&#39;t have &#39;authority&#39; to override GC.com on GC.com&#39;s own website.

So from there, approaching a GC.com reviewer was the wrong thing to do - in that it was never going to be effective - You were saying "this doesn&#39;t comply with guidelines" and he was saying "it does comply with GC.com guidelines" - the ones he is there to approve.

The more effective form of action would be to talk about it in the GAGB meetings and sort it out from there, relying on goodwill and common sense which would have most likely worked - you are right to point out there was general agreement on your topic until it transpired that there was more to it than you were letting on.

You will, and probably have, said that there was no permission from the landowner - well, the reviewers are not there to check the permissions, they rely on the cache setter to confirm this and as far as the cache setter is/was aware he did. Job done.

So there is a grey area, grey is dealt with by common sense and goodwill. There is plenty of grey - SSSI&#39;s for instance should be looked after, but not all are so sensitive that you can&#39;t cache on them but some are. It&#39;s grey, seeking to make it black and white will be using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It&#39;s just a common sense issue and like the (ex)cache in question common sense would have resolved this.

As a ex caver myself, albeit only at club level, I know that cavers don&#39;t fill caves with litter, that point was used to respond to one of yours and what gets forgotten is that the cachers did remove the rubbish. I also would guess that there are rogue, "common sense reduced" cavers and responsible cavers. As a cacher, I also know that most cachers have green issues and safety issues towards the top of their priorities, I believe you know this also, although, like in all communities, there are a few who are unaware of some issues.

My recommendation would be for you to introduce the DCA and the GAGB, in an even handed way as you can manage and then step back. Hopefully the issue is not too inflamed to be resolved in a way that doesn&#39;t do damage to caves, cachers in caves and geocaching in general. [/b][/quote]
Thank you for this considered and constructive response. I just wish I had made it&#33;

[moote01]

Originally posted by Kitty Hawk+Jun 11 2006, 07:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kitty Hawk @ Jun 11 2006, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 04:38 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Kitty Hawk@Jun 10 2006, 10:46 PM
Whether or not we agree with you has ceased to be the point, possibly it was never the point. The problem is with you, your manner of communication and your apparent superiority complex.

As always there are a variety of means at your disposal for getting things done.

You choose a fairly aggressive, manipulative and condescending fashion of communicating and then feign surprise when people don&#39;t rush to your support.

A N Other could have posted the same message in a benign, informative and open fashion and successfully achieved result you strive for, but with none of the discord.

The other problem you have is that you have openly admitted to people that you enjoy the effect your approach has on people.

Enjoy away.
Here is a fact, I started an innocent post in the Goecaching.com forums, everyone was agreeing, then a Forum moderator decided he would post and made it personal. I got attacked first, I had to defend.
Disagree with you there. You started a topic, but nobody thinks it was innocent.

You were having a private correspondance with the reviewers. You then decided to air your views giving only an abbreviated version of your side of events in order to create a forum situation that you could use as a lever on the reviewers.

What you didn&#39;t anticipate was that the reviewer stood up for himself.

Now, from my vantage point, I see someone who has the above history and another person who has, in the 30 months I&#39;ve been visiting the forums shown himself to be patient and equable at every turn. This is, as far as I know, is a kind of universal feeling and you then alienated yourself and the results are for all to see.

The issue is one that is easy to understand and I believe you understand it too.

The reviewers are tasked to review caches by GC.com, a US based website who have tried to create useful worldwide guidelines to help with cache registration on their website. They have one &#39;master&#39;, GC.com and they review caches based on GC.com guidelines.

Then there is a UK body who has their own set of local guidelines. You know, from being an ex commitee member that GAGB don&#39;t have &#39;authority&#39; to override GC.com on GC.com&#39;s own website.

So from there, approaching a GC.com reviewer was the wrong thing to do - in that it was never going to be effective - You were saying "this doesn&#39;t comply with guidelines" and he was saying "it does comply with GC.com guidelines" - the ones he is there to approve.

The more effective form of action would be to talk about it in the GAGB meetings and sort it out from there, relying on goodwill and common sense which would have most likely worked - you are right to point out there was general agreement on your topic until it transpired that there was more to it than you were letting on.

You will, and probably have, said that there was no permission from the landowner - well, the reviewers are not there to check the permissions, they rely on the cache setter to confirm this and as far as the cache setter is/was aware he did. Job done.

So there is a grey area, grey is dealt with by common sense and goodwill. There is plenty of grey - SSSI&#39;s for instance should be looked after, but not all are so sensitive that you can&#39;t cache on them but some are. It&#39;s grey, seeking to make it black and white will be using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It&#39;s just a common sense issue and like the (ex)cache in question common sense would have resolved this.

As a ex caver myself, albeit only at club level, I know that cavers don&#39;t fill caves with litter, that point was used to respond to one of yours and what gets forgotten is that the cachers did remove the rubbish. I also would guess that there are rogue, "common sense reduced" cavers and responsible cavers. As a cacher, I also know that most cachers have green issues and safety issues towards the top of their priorities, I believe you know this also, although, like in all communities, there are a few who are unaware of some issues.

My recommendation would be for you to introduce the DCA and the GAGB, in an even handed way as you can manage and then step back. Hopefully the issue is not too inflamed to be resolved in a way that doesn&#39;t do damage to caves, cachers in caves and geocaching in general. [/b][/quote]
If you wish I will post every email I had with the reviewers and GC.com, you can see how little consideration they gave to the issue.

You will be able to see how one reviewer actually slandered me within the email, and how GC.com refused to take issue with a cacher who used physically threatening language, in an email sent via my GC.com profile.

Politically if you disagree with something you question others for their opinion.

I did this on the GC.com forums; then a Moderator made it personal, and people deleted their comments they has posted.

Oh and lets get this straight here, the cache in question has disgraced Geocachers an no doubt the GAGB within the caving community, brilliant you are wrecking your own sport&#33;

But I asked earlier one simple question which was:



OK, all you pro cave cache Cachers

Answer this either Yes or No

Should Geocachers be able to just use another organisations negotiated access agreement, without any prior consultation with that organisation?

If you answer yes please can you expand on your reasoning

No one has replied to that yet, which actually shows a lot about the people reading this thread. If you read books on Cognitive development and Psychometric reasoning, you might just understand a little about how you are all responding. To put it blunt you are all acting agressive as you feel threatened, you perceve me as a treat. Why? that is your issue you need to addressthis and you will then read things like



OK, all you pro cave cache Cachers

Answer this either Yes or No

Should Geocachers be able to just use another organisations negotiated access agreement, without any prior consultation with that organisation?

If you answer yes please can you expand on your reasoning

[Mongoose39uk]

Moote

Please consider this

Many people may agree with you about this cache. However in my opinion and the opinion of many people who I have spoken to (including those that support what you are trying to say) feel that the way you have approached this has failed to gain any support in the community.

My issue is not with you or your points. It is how these have been presented by you.

You have had your initial question answered now many times over.

They are guidelines which the reviewers respect and will try to work with. However they are the gagb guidelines and not those of Geocaching.com.

Above all they are guidelines not rules, nor statutes, nor regulations. They are not there to force the reviewers hand.

The GAGB and the caving organisation are now in contact. Please let both organisations resolve this issue. You may or may not get the result you are looking for.

Let them get on with it please

[civilised]

Without wanting to be contentious, why are caches placed in caves anyway ?

Do some people have GPSr&#39;s that work underground ? Can they point me towards where I can find them ?

TIA


civilised

[t.a.folk]

eeee

[nobbynobbs]

well to throw my little 5 p worth into the ring late in the evening.

i have answered your question on your other thread.

and to be honest no you haven&#39;t answered my question.

i believe what you have no said is that you think that caches placed in sssi&#39;s should be given lots of consideration by the approvers....

well we all think that.... but it would appear that you think that if they then agree to the placement they are wrong because they lack your wisdom and experience.

yes people do stupid things without proper planning... climbing. walking over mountains, sailing without experience or equipment. and caving. just how to you propose we could stop them? and all these are rescued by very brave unpaid volunteers.

some of your wording does give an interesting insight. you refer to caching as "your " sport not "our".....

so is it just this one cave that you think should have a blanket ban on caches? or a blanket ban on all caves, or on all SSSI&#39;s?
and don&#39;t hide behind they should be given consideration because they get consideration. it&#39;s just the decision is not the one you seem to want.

[dodgydaved]

Here are, I believe, a total list of activities that are against the SSSI conditions (?) for the Castleton SSSI. Area 8 of which covers The Winnats.

Which of these are seen as being contravened by a geocache?

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/special/s.../OLD1002643.pdf

Operations likely to damage the special interest
Site name: Castleton
OLD1002643
Ref. No. Type of Operation
1 Cultivation, including ploughing, rotovating, harrowing, and re-seeding.
2 Grazing and changes in the grazing regime (including type of stock, intensity or
seasonal pattern of grazing and cessation of grazing).
3 Changes in stock feeding practice.
4 Changes in the mowing or cutting regime.
5 Application of manure, fertilisers and lime.
6 Application of pesticides, including herbicides (weedkillers).
7 Dumping, spreading or discharge of any materials.
8 Burning.
9 The release into the site of any wild, feral or domestic animal*, plant or seed.
10 The killing or removal of any wild animal*, other than pest control.
11 The destruction, displacement, removal or cutting of any plant or plant remains,
including tree, shrub, herb, hedge, moss, lichen and turf.
12 The introduction of woodland management+ and changes in woodland
management+.
13a Drainage (including the use of mole, tile, tunnel or other artificial drains).
13b Modification of the structure of watercourses (eg streams, springs and drains),
including their banks and beds, as by re-alignment, re-grading and dredging.
14 The changing of water levels and tables and water utilisation (including irrigation,
storage and abstraction from existing water bodies and through boreholes).
15 Infilling of ditches, drains, ponds, pools or marshes.
20 Extraction of minerals, including peat, topsoil, subsoil, limestone and spoil.
21 Construction, removal or destruction of roads, tracks, hardstands, banks, ditches or
other earthworks, or the laying, maintenance or removal of pipelines and cables,
above or below ground.
22 Storage of materials in pits, mines, caves or swallowholes or against cave entrances,
quarry faces or natural outcrops.
23 Erection of permanent or temporary structures, or the undertaking of engineering
works, including drilling.
24 Modification of natural or man-made features, including cave entrances, clearance
of boulders, large stones, loose rock or scree and battering, buttressing, grading or
seeding rock-faces and cuttings, infilling of pits and quarries.
25 Removal of geological specimens, including rock samples, minerals and fossils.
26 Use of vehicles likely to damage or disturb features of interest.
28 Changes in game and waterfowl management and hunting practices.
* ‘animal’ includes any mammal, reptile, amphibian, bird, fish or invertebrate.
+ including afforestation, planting, clear and selective felling.



22 maybe a tenuous possibilty, but I think not.

[moote01]

Originally posted by dodgydaved@Jun 11 2006, 09:58 PM
Here are, I believe, a total list of activities that are against the SSSI conditions (?) for the Castleton SSSI. Area 8 of which covers The Winnats.

Which of these are seen as being contravened by a geocache?

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/special/s.../OLD1002643.pdf

Operations likely to damage the special interest
Site name: Castleton
OLD1002643
Ref. No. Type of Operation
1 Cultivation, including ploughing, rotovating, harrowing, and re-seeding.
2 Grazing and changes in the grazing regime (including type of stock, intensity or
seasonal pattern of grazing and cessation of grazing).
3 Changes in stock feeding practice.
4 Changes in the mowing or cutting regime.
5 Application of manure, fertilisers and lime.
6 Application of pesticides, including herbicides (weedkillers).
7 Dumping, spreading or discharge of any materials.
8 Burning.
9 The release into the site of any wild, feral or domestic animal*, plant or seed.
10 The killing or removal of any wild animal*, other than pest control.
11 The destruction, displacement, removal or cutting of any plant or plant remains,
including tree, shrub, herb, hedge, moss, lichen and turf.
12 The introduction of woodland management+ and changes in woodland
management+.
13a Drainage (including the use of mole, tile, tunnel or other artificial drains).
13b Modification of the structure of watercourses (eg streams, springs and drains),
including their banks and beds, as by re-alignment, re-grading and dredging.
14 The changing of water levels and tables and water utilisation (including irrigation,
storage and abstraction from existing water bodies and through boreholes).
15 Infilling of ditches, drains, ponds, pools or marshes.
20 Extraction of minerals, including peat, topsoil, subsoil, limestone and spoil.
21 Construction, removal or destruction of roads, tracks, hardstands, banks, ditches or
other earthworks, or the laying, maintenance or removal of pipelines and cables,
above or below ground.
22 Storage of materials in pits, mines, caves or swallowholes or against cave entrances,
quarry faces or natural outcrops.
23 Erection of permanent or temporary structures, or the undertaking of engineering
works, including drilling.
24 Modification of natural or man-made features, including cave entrances, clearance
of boulders, large stones, loose rock or scree and battering, buttressing, grading or
seeding rock-faces and cuttings, infilling of pits and quarries.
25 Removal of geological specimens, including rock samples, minerals and fossils.
26 Use of vehicles likely to damage or disturb features of interest.
28 Changes in game and waterfowl management and hunting practices.
* ‘animal’ includes any mammal, reptile, amphibian, bird, fish or invertebrate.
+ including afforestation, planting, clear and selective felling.



22 maybe a tenuous possibilty, but I think not.
Actually the list is not exclsive,these are just the common set. After speaking with English Nature, other activities might,and do require permission. Caves normally have differant conditions stipulated.

[moote01]

Originally posted by dodgydaved@Jun 11 2006, 09:58 PM

7 Dumping, spreading or discharge of any materials.

Saying the above though, I read point 7 as excluding the placement of Geocaches, thank you I rest my case.

[MCL]

Speaking personally here not as committee member, I still fail to see why this is a GAGB issue really, Moote. You have already told the DCA in your email to them that the problem is with the GC.COM guidelines and the reviewers on that site. So what on earth are you doing telling the GAGB that its all our fault&#33; I just don&#39;t see it.

Sounds like you have a grievance with another website and the way it is run. Bringing that in here and then trying to pin blame on GAGB just doesn&#39;t stand up to logic.

So stop going around trying to pit the GAGB against the caving associations. We didn&#39;t place the cache, we didn&#39;t approve it, and our guidelines would have probably stopped it anyway. So why are we to blame?

The emails you sent to DCA appear to have correctly identified Geocaching.com as the people they should be talking to.

So why aren&#39;t they? And why do they suddenly have GAGB in their sights? I just fail to see why this has anything much to do with us. We don&#39;t control GC.COM and they don&#39;t have to abide by our guidelines.

I am trying to find a reason why you have come in here and stirred up a bitter war on the GAGB territory. I can think of one. But not many more.

[The Royles]

Originally posted by moote01+Jun 11 2006, 11:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 @ Jun 11 2006, 11:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dodgydaved@Jun 11 2006, 09:58 PM

7 Dumping, spreading or discharge of any materials.

Saying the above though, I read point 7 as excluding the placement of Geocaches, thank you I rest my case. [/b][/quote]
If you are wanting to split hairs, I would say that the cache was not dumped, spread or discharged in any of the meanings of those words.

Better re-open your case, unless you have another deceased equine in need of assaulting.

[nobbynobbs]

moote, really what must i do to get a reply?

i have answered you could you not do the decent thing and answer me?

[Kitty Hawk]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 08:16 PM



"OK, all you pro cave cache Cachers

Answer this either Yes or No

Should Geocachers be able to just use another organisations negotiated access agreement, without any prior consultation with that organisation?

If you answer yes please can you expand on your reasoning "


I don&#39;t know how to the the separate quotes bit.

This is a loaded question which is why nobody has answered it. If you were a benign questioner you would recieve answers.

[Chris n Maria]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 06:11 PM
As seen as you don&#39;t actually know me, it is a cheek that you make fun of me in what is a serious issue. Maybe you could actually add something constructive, in stead of tom foolery&#33;
I wasn&#39;t actually making fun of you, I was trying to point out that influencing people is different to berating people.

I have come accross caches which were in places I didn&#39;t feel suitable (in both cases, they had been easily accesable until the landowners had fenced them in or put up signs saying do not enter due to wildlife restrictions.
In both cases I sent a tactful (hopefully&#33;) mail to the owners explaining the new situation and in both cases they agreed to move them. If they had not taken my advice I would have left it up to them as according to GC.com they take the risk associated with placing the cache.

I don&#39;t feel I have enough knowledge of the cave/situation to offer an opinon as I always feel that you should let ignorence get in the way of an opinon. My caving knowledge is well out of date too.


"OK, all you pro cave cache Cachers
Answer this either Yes or No

Should Geocachers be able to just use another organisations negotiated access agreement, without any prior consultation with that organisation?

If you answer yes please can you expand on your reasoning "
My answer it depends . For example The ramblers have negotiated access to a field near me:
would I use their agreement to gain access even though I am not a member of the organisation...of course I would.
Would I consult with the ramblers if I wanted to play frisbee there...Nope.
Would I consult them if I was placing a cache there...probebly not - if I had the landowners permission then I wouldn&#39;t care what the ramblers think.
If the landowner told me to talk to the ramblers...then I would.

GAGB & GC.com both produce guidelines which as we all know are effectivly unenforcable but rely on peoples common sense and goodwill to make work. What I find hard to understand though is that you were on the GAGB comittee and had the opportunity to represent cachers in negotiations with 3rd parties, yet you seem to have only started making representations to these other groups after you resigned.

Chris

[Kitty Hawk]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 08:16 PM

If you wish I will post every email I had with the reviewers and GC.com, you can see how little consideration they gave to the issue.

You will be able to see how one reviewer actually slandered me within the email, and how GC.com refused to take issue with a cacher who used physically threatening language, in an email sent via my GC.com profile.

Politically if you disagree with something you question others for their opinion.
.
I did this on the GC.com forums; then a Moderator made it personal, and people deleted their comments they has posted

Oh and lets get this straight here, the cache in question has disgraced Geocachers an no doubt the GAGB within the caving community, brilliant you are wrecking your own sport&#33;

No one has replied to that yet, which actually shows a lot about the people reading this thread. If you read books on Cognitive development and Psychometric reasoning, you might just understand a little about how you are all responding. To put it blunt you are all acting agressive as you feel threatened, you perceve me as a treat. Why? that is your issue you need to addressthis and you will then read things like


Politically, yes, you seek other people opinion. First you give the other people the whole story, not just the parts you want to disclose to guide the opinions in your favour.

As you say, this is one of the arts of psychometric questioning of which I assume you have a level of expertise. However, I suspect the reviewer considered your thread the 1st attack and his the defence. If you are able to separate yourself from the situation look at your original post, put it into context and consider how he would feel.

The cache in question may have disgraced the geocaching community - that&#39;s mainly owing to the way in which the situation has been created and then brought to the attention of the caving community. It needn&#39;t have, it could have been easily sorted out.

When I look at the responses here I feel they may show standard signs that you are percieved as a threat (treat? ;) ) Equally though they could show that when people know there is something wrong happening they jump in where ordinarily they wouldn&#39;t. The signals are the same and in this situation, where they are different they favour the latter argument. The aggresssion, in usually non aggressive people, is purely a sign of stress, again a behavioral sign.

You seem to be nearer &#39;Mr Spock&#39; than &#39;Capt Kirk&#39; in the old Star Trek series. I don&#39;t mean that as an insult or characterise, , just that you seem to compute logically, but don&#39;t seem to factor in the emotions and feelings that can be created/caused. It&#39;s easy to figure emotions as the stuff of &#39;weak people&#39; but understanding other peoples emotions is what needs to be addressed at your end of the equation. It&#39;s in your interests - you will be far more successful when you get it.

[Bill D (wwh)]

I think MCL&#39;s post sums things up pretty well. This is not a GAGB issue at all. We are not the cache police, and our guidelines are not binding on any parties except where there are specific agreements incorporating them, which is not the case here.

As the cache in question has apparently and perhaps unsurprisingly gone missing, the issue seems to have resolved itself in any case.

---
Bill, not wearing Chairman&#39;s hat

[moote01]

Originally posted by Bill D (wwh)@Jun 12 2006, 08:54 AM
I think MCL&#39;s post sums things up pretty well. This is not a GAGB issue at all. We are not the cache police, and our guidelines are not binding on any parties except where there are specific agreements incorporating them, which is not the case here.

As the cache in question has apparently and perhaps unsurprisingly gone missing, the issue seems to have resolved itself in any case.

---
Bill, not wearing Chairman&#39;s hat
Yes, not cache police, but you make access agreements, now how would the GAGB feel if your agreements were being abused by none Cachers, and this caused issues with future agreements?

Here is a fact, I help manage and maintain the Ease Gill SSSI both above and below ground, Walkers have free access to the above ground section of the SSSI, but to enter underground you require 2 things.

1. A valid access permit.
2. A valid BCA insurance card or equivalent.

This is now more the norm in caving, not many Cachers could easily get these as you would need to be in a recognised club, and been through a probationary period to gain full membership.

Insurance is a big issue for Landowners and of recent years has been a stumbling point on many caving access agreements. If Geocahers wish to start entering underground then you might actually be breaking an agreement if you enter uninsured.

The GAGB need to consider insurance as any activity can be forced to request this, and as Geocaching is actually an organised activity (By the fact that it has an organised website, and organisations like the GAGB) It will not look good for your future agreements if it is seen by organisations see Geocachers Hijacking there agreements, without due consideration being given to other organisations agreements.

[The Royles]

Bump because I do not like secret societies (unless they are the ones I am a member of)

[paul.blitz]

To answer short and sweet here, the UK reviewer hijacked a 3rd party agreement, the way that the UK reviewer mind worked was, "there is and agreement on the caving database, so that covers us" No it does not.

Innocent question here: would you care to point me to further details on this, they must exist in a thread somewhere?

You use the word "hijack an aggreement"... if there is some form of "open agreement", which someone might have agreed, then I don&#39;t see that as "hijacking". However, if the agrement WAS specific (eg permission to a specific organisation) then someone made a major error of judgement.

However, I&#39;m also aware that, in a discussion, things tend to get massively misquoted and exaggerated, so I&#39;d just like to be able to back-track a bit to undersatnd the REALITY of what happened.


The cache in question has not had the cave owners agreement Full Stop.

Next innocent question: did you make this simple point (and provide the cave owner details) to the reviewer when suggesting that the listing (and cache) be removed?



If Guidelines are what they say, then cachers should not moan when a cache is in a Dry stone wall, full stop&#33;

In essence, you are correct. But it is "generally felt" that they shouldn&#39;t be (placed in dry stone walls) as there is a distinct possibility of criminal damage, so when it happens, people pass "suitable comment" (however, to be honest, your behaviour, from what I have seen here, far exceeds that).



If you feel your guidelines are worthless like this, then they are.

If i have a 5 year old child, I may have a "guideline" in that I want that child to hold my hand whenever we cross a road. It is a very sensible idea, but if it happens to be Christmas day (or the time England are in the world cup final) and the road is absolutely deserted, then it may be ok *in that instance* to NOT hold the child&#39;s hand. But that ability to sometimes ignore the guideline in NO WAY diminishes the underlying worth of that guideline.



But any sensirtive SSSI should be treated with respect.

I agree, but there is major difference between "respect" and a complete ban. If you decide to enter an SSSI to simply have a walk around, then you should do so "with respect"... but you are not BANNED from walking around. Nor are dogs / bikes etc NECCESSARILY banned from SSSIs: it depends on the site.

I have heard of caches being placed in suitable SSSI *sites*... usually away from the "main parts", and in full cooperation with the land owners, and all other interested parties (and to those who HAVE managed that, I take off my hat to you... I know that it will have taken a LOT of work to do so)



By the way, Milton, maybe you would care to learn a little "nettiquette", and learn to "edit down" the messages you quote, as I have. In many cases you copy a major essay, and add just a few lines. OK, I *know* bandwidth is close to free, but storage space and my time are both more limited&#33;&#33;


Paul Blitz

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 12 2006, 09:53 AM
The GAGB need to consider insurance as any activity can be forced to request this, and as Geocaching is actually an organised activity (By the fact that it has an organised website, and organisations like the GAGB)
The whole question of insurance has come up before, but there are 2 major issues with the GAGB taking out any insurance:

a) it would be HUGELY expensive, as it would potentially need to cover ANYONE seeking ANY cache, at ANY time, with ANY level of (in)experience. (But you are very welcome to offer to sponsor it&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;)

B) You are not allowed to insure for something for which you are not legally responsible. The GAGB (as an organisation) does not place any caches. It does not SEEK any caches. It does not LIST any acches. It does not "APPROVE" any caches. So there is no legal connection between the GAGB as an organisation, and caches placed.

(Nor are GC.com caches limited to being placed by, or sought by, GAGB members)

Therefore, GAGB is unable to get any insurance to make sure that "anyone seeking a cache is insured".

I wonder, does the Ramblers Association have liability insurance to cover its members when out rambling? I HIGHLY doubt it, for the same reason.


One major agreement that GAGB now holds DID initially ask for insurance cover, and for that single reason, we were unable to go any further until the organisation withdrew its demand for insurance.

Paul

[Firth of Forth]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 08:16 PM
If you read books on Cognitive development and Psychometric reasoning, you might just understand a little about how you are all responding. To put it blunt you are all acting agressive as you feel threatened, you perceve me as a treat. Why? that is your issue you need to addressthis and you will then read things like


As a clinical psychologist this makes no sense to me, Moote. I&#39;ve never heard the phrase &#39;psychometric reasoning&#39; before; but then I don&#39;t know everything about psychology. ;)

It&#39;s a &#39;I&#39;m superior to you&#39; kind of statement, and is just the kind of thing that illustrates a previous point about how your style is not likely to win friends and influence people. It&#39;s a real shame that you can&#39;t see that.

[t.a.folk]

As a clinical psychologist this makes no sense to me, Moote. I&#39;ve never heard the phrase &#39;psychometric reasoning&#39; before; but then I don&#39;t know everything about psychology.



&#39;psychometric reasoning&#39; is a management tool "drawn up" by psychologist, used to profile potential recruits

Quote from Goggle

"Practise Psychometric Reasoning Tests
Have you got an assessment day or interview coming up, and been told there&#39;ll be a numerical reasoning or data interpretation test?

These types of test are increasingly popular among graduate recruiters, as they provide a way to assess candidates&#39; analytical abilities on a level playing field.

If you haven&#39;t taken them before, the tests can be daunting, as they are a new and unfamiliar type of task.

The key to resolving this is to get some practise tests under your belt and familiarise yourself with them - and luckily we have a number of resources below to help you to do that. These are examples of test formats which are used widely by leading recruiters.

The tests have time limits, to recreate the real thing, so make sure your mobile&#39;s off (no phoning a friend) and give them a go&#33;

Good luck&#33;

Numerical Reasoning Practice Test

Logical Reasoning Practice Test

Verbal Reasoning Practice Test

And you&#39;ll find others in our Psychometric Tests guide"

[Mongoose39uk]

Ah but thats talking about tests not reasoning&#33;

[t.a.folk]

Numerical Reasoning Practice Test

Logical Reasoning Practice Test

Verbal Reasoning Practice Test

????????

[el10t]

Never mind - edited out. Not worth the effort.

[Mongoose39uk]

Originally posted by t.a.folk@Jun 25 2006, 09:41 AM

Numerical Reasoning Practice Test

Logical Reasoning Practice Test

Verbal Reasoning Practice Test

????????
I think you need to do some more reading.

Pschometric testing is used as a guide to a persons abilities to reason in key areas.

Psychometric reasoning, looked canot find.

[t.a.folk]

http://www.milkround.com/s4/jobseekers/adv...asp?groupid=762 (http://www.milkround.com/s4/jobseekers/advice/applicationadvice/applicationadvice_display.asp?groupid=762)

[Mongoose39uk]

Again tests the thought process.

Also totally off topic

psy·cho·met·rics Audio pronunciation of "psychometric" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sk-mtrks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)

The branch of psychology that deals with the design, administration, and interpretation of quantitative tests for the measurement of psychological variables such as intelligence, aptitude, and personality traits. Also called psychometry.

[thekennelat79]

This thread does rather seem to have gone off-topic.

May I suggest that the following quotation from Macbeth might be appropriate?


Life&#39;s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage.
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

[t.a.folk]

As a clinical psychologist this makes no sense to me, Moote. I&#39;ve never heard the phrase &#39;psychometric reasoning&#39; before; but then I don&#39;t know everything about psychology.



How come off topic?? I was pointing out that there is "&#39;psychometric reasoning"

[Mongoose39uk]

Please go and do some more studying.

A little knowledge and all that&#33;

[The Hokesters]

This is turning in to a scene from a Portugal v Holland World Cup 2006 match - RED CARD&#33; :ph34r: :lol:

[MCL]

Look, ta folk, its very simple. You are falling into what I call the black Elvis shirt trap...

The other day I bought a black Elvis shirt. But who the heck has ever heard of a black Elvis? Obviously, its an Elvis shirt, which happens to be black.

There&#39;s no such thing as psychometric reasoning. There are psychometric tests that are testing your normal reasoning abilities, so they are called psychometric reasoning tests. This is why google throws up so many hits when you type in psychometric reasoning.... But that doesn&#39;t mean that you can go around saying that there must be such a thing as "psychometric reasoning"&#33; The phrase is meaningless. It is a nonsense&#33; Plus it shows just how flaky it is relying on a search engine to do your research. Google is great, but you need to be aware of a search engine&#39;s limitations. They don&#39;t search on context, only on syntax.

Anyone who uses the phrase actually shows that they are only making false deductions from the language and syntax alone, without reference to the subject of the text.

God I hate shoddy logic and slipshod reasoning&#33; Absolutely no excuse for it&#33; So lets just sharpen up at the back there what ho? :lol:

[nobbynobbs]

don&#39;t rely on google.... blasphemer&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; listen not to the unbeliever for thou shall be cast down.... :lol:

[Mongoose39uk]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs@Jun 26 2006, 06:27 AM
don&#39;t rely on google.... blasphemer&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; listen not to the unbeliever for thou shall be cast down.... :lol:
ROFLMAO

[Bill D (wwh)]

thekennelat79 wrote:
Life&#39;s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage.
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

:o :P :D

[MCL]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs@Jun 26 2006, 06:27 AM
don&#39;t rely on google.... blasphemer&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; listen not to the unbeliever for thou shall be cast down.... :lol:
I think you mean SHALT be cast down....

:P :P :P

[nobbynobbs]

i made the religion up and i&#39;ll use any language i choose :P :lol: :lol:

[Alice Band]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs@Jun 26 2006, 08:16 PM
i made the religion up and i&#39;ll use any language i choose :P :lol: :lol:
Bloody Omnians..... :P

[ROFLMHO]

Originally posted by Alice Band+Jun 27 2006, 09:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alice Band @ Jun 27 2006, 09:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nobbynobbs@Jun 26 2006, 08:16 PM
i made the religion up and i&#39;ll use any language i choose :P :lol: :lol:
Bloody Omnians..... :P [/b][/quote]
I agree, they get everywher when your not watching&#33; :lol: :lol: