Thanks Thanks:  5
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: New Forest Landowner Agreement. Temporary Publication Ban by GC's UK Reviewers

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Exclamation New Forest Landowner Agreement. Temporary Publication Ban by GC's UK Reviewers

    The New Forest Landowner Placement Agreement is up for it's annual renewal. On checking the No's in preparation for renewing it, the GAGB Committee [with whom the Agreement is with] has discovered that we have reached the maximum No of Permitted caches [100 caches] .

    As such GC's UK Reviewer Team have no option but to place a Temporary Ban on Publishing New Cache Submissions, to comply with the requirements of the Agreement. [I hope that both Navicache and Terracaching will follow suit, as the Agreement is not Listing Site specific]

    In the mean time the GAGB Negotiator will reopen discussions with the New Forest regarding increasing the permitted No of caches allowed. As there is a good working relationship between the NF and GAGB, it is hoped that these negotiations will be successful

    As soon as the negotiations have reached their conclusion, the GAGB Committee will make a official announcement about the outcome of the negotiations

    Deceangi

    on behalf of GC's UK Reviewer Team
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Pinning this thread.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3

    Default New Forest Caches

    With the formation of The New Forest National Park Authority, with whom is the agreement? Is it specific to some land owners within the National Park, and if so how would a cacher know who owns what parcel? For example, I have an authorised cache on Woodland Trust land in Wiltshire which is also in the New Forest National Park.
    If we are to be artificially limited to 100 caches for the vast area of the New Forest National Park, we better make sure they are good ones, not a load of micros in car parks.
    Geocaching is becoming far more popular than "The Ancients" predicted. It has a place within the future exploitation of the National Park as a ecological and recreational resource for the nation and a mere 100 caches will not be adequate.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juliadream View Post
    With the formation of The New Forest National Park Authority, with whom is the agreement? Is it specific to some land owners within the National Park, and if so how would a cacher know who owns what parcel? For example, I have an authorised cache on Woodland Trust land in Wiltshire which is also in the New Forest National Park.
    If we are to be artificially limited to 100 caches for the vast area of the New Forest National Park, we better make sure they are good ones, not a load of micros in car parks.
    Geocaching is becoming far more popular than "The Ancients" predicted. It has a place within the future exploitation of the National Park as a ecological and recreational resource for the nation and a mere 100 caches will not be adequate.
    As a lay cacher our present understanding of the Agreement in the New Forest is that it is for lands managed by the New Forest Forestry Commission .
    So by that our understanding your cache on Woodland Trust managed land wouldn't count as one of the 100 permitted "containers " .
    The Agreement presently states "containers " so our interpretation is that a multi with containers at each stage plus a container at the end would be counted as more than one .
    Have we got it wrong ?
    We like Greens

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Just to give a perspective on cache numbers, the Isle of Man is 572 sq km in size and currently has 189 caches. It's nowhere near saturation point, and we don't seem to have much trouble with overburding the infrastructure with visitors.

    The New Forest is the same size (571 sq km). So if the new agreement is to have an increase in cache numbers, I would say that another 100 or so wouldn't be a problem as far as density is concerned.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.a.folk View Post
    As a lay cacher our present understanding of the Agreement in the New Forest is that it is for lands managed by the New Forest Forestry Commission .
    So by that our understanding your cache on Woodland Trust managed land wouldn't count as one of the 100 permitted "containers " .
    The Agreement presently states "containers " so our interpretation is that a multi with containers at each stage plus a container at the end would be counted as more than one .
    Have we got it wrong ?
    That's right.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    I'm in negotiations with the New Forest Forestry Commission and will post when I have news.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Originally Posted by t.a.folk
    As a lay cacher our present understanding of the Agreement in the New Forest is that it is for lands managed by the New Forest Forestry Commission .
    So by that our understanding your cache on Woodland Trust managed land wouldn't count as one of the 100 permitted "containers " .
    The Agreement presently states "containers " so our interpretation is that a multi with containers at each stage plus a container at the end would be counted as more than one .
    Have we got it wrong ?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Wombles View Post
    That's right.
    That's right... we have it all wrong?
    We like Greens

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.a.folk View Post
    That's right... we have it all wrong?
    Your statements were true - apart from the one which said you were wrong

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    You've lost us with words that we know not the meaning there-of .
    Game set and match to you Dave :lol:


    Starting again trying as best we know how NOT TO BE AMBIGUOUS
    Originally Posted by ta folk

    As a lay cacher our present understanding of the Agreement in the New Forest is that it is for lands managed by the New Forest Forestry Commission.
    So by that our understanding your cache on Woodland Trust managed land wouldn't count as one of the 100 permitted "containers " .
    .
    Is this phrase in quotes above correct or incorrect ?

    The Agreement presently states "containers " so our interpretation is that a multi with containers at each stage plus a container at the end would be counted as more than one .

    Is this quote correct or incorrect ?
    We like Greens

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    As a lay cacher our present understanding of the Agreement in the New Forest is that it is for lands managed by the New Forest Forestry Commission.
    So by that our understanding your cache on Woodland Trust managed land wouldn't count as one of the 100 permitted "containers
    Correct


    The Agreement presently states "containers " so our interpretation is that a multi with containers at each stage plus a container at the end would be counted as more than one
    Correct


    Now can I have one on Science and Nature?

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    The first post of this Thread informed us that the GAGB Negotiator will reopen discussions with the New Forest regarding increasing the permitted number of caches allowed. As there is a good working relationship between the NF and GAGB, it is hoped that these negotiations will be successful”.
    We have seen on the other Forum that some people believe that 100 is enough.
    We live close to the New Forest, have found most of the caches there, and have 12 placed there ourselves.

    Here is our view.
    100 caches in the New Forest is not enough. The Forest is not full of caches

    If you consider that some visitors prefer to go to explore remote areas of the Forest, there are still several remote areas that have no cache.
    Some visitors prefer to ride on the many kms of designated cycle track. A long Series of caches could be placed close to these cycle tracks.
    Wheelchair users and cachers pushing buggies should be considered, with caches available for them.
    What about the Historians. You just need to look at a detailed map of the New Forest and you will see numerous historical sites that are worthy of a cache.
    Ok. Some of the readers will be saying “Why don’t we put caches on the cycle tracks or near the historical sites etc?”. We will if we can.

    Don’t forget this:
    The “100” is containers, not stand alone caches.
    So yesterday we went to the New Forest and found a Multi Cache. If the limit remains at 100 containers then there could only be 16 caches in the whole of the Forest.

    There is a fair mix of caches in the New Forest now, but as more people take up geocaching, they will also want to place their own caches. Do they have to wait until a current cache owner archives their cache? If the limit remains at 100 then some people will never be able to place a cache here.
    If the Forestry Commission is concerned about the impact that we as cachers make, then they should also consider the fact that a lot of people come to the New Forest with the sole intention of finding some caches. It is good for the Tourist industry. People come and camp in the Forest and go caching. The more caches, the more visitors.
    Hopefully, the permitted numbers will be increased.
    Perhaps the ‘limit’ could be removed.
    Perhaps the way ahead may be to remove the limit but increase the proximity distance to 500 metres. This would allow many more caches to be placed but spread them around more evenly.
    Perhaps some control should be taken over the type of cache being placed. 100 traditional caches might be better than less than 20 multi caches.
    Perhaps ‘offset’ caches should be used rather than multi caches with several stages.
    Anyway, we hope that Dave (Wombles) can get the permitted number increased.

    Thanks for taking the time to read this.
    Last edited by DizzyPair; 27th November 2008 at 06:03 PM. Reason: Typing!!!

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Good post, DizzyPair. Although I only know the New Forest a little, I'm pretty sure that your assertion is correct that 100 caches is too low a limit. See my IOM comparison above: two similar areas.

    Perhaps not directly relevant to this issue, but as a preamble; I have experience of cache restrictions in US State Parks, and quite frankly it brings the whole "permission" system into disrepute. We spent an hour looking for a micro in a State Park. Never did find it, but we found several dozen beer cans, a few bottles, half a dozen electric boxes, an area used as a toilet, a vast swathe of tarmac, several large utility poles, hundreds of passing cars (and so on). We never had to leave a gravel/tarmac area (no, it wasn't a Walmart car park!). Visitors? About one a week, I guess all car-borne (good parking on a side road). We saw about half a dozen random cars pull off onto the verge in our vicinity while we were searching, which puts the impact of the cache into perspective.

    A fortnight later it was forcibly archived, as someone had reported the cache for being inside the State Park boundary.

    You could have hidden a hundred film containers within a quarter of a mile of the spot and only geocachers would have been inconvenienced.

    I know we can't just chuck caches around willy-nilly, but it's my belief that land managers frequently misunderstand the game (perhaps deliberately) and make the cache density into a big issue, when in reality it's not going to matter at all. I really can't see that if you have a series of small or micro caches placed sensibly at intervals along popular footpaths, that it should be worth the management bothering about the occasional passing geocacher having a quick halt and log. If a cache is a bit obvious, or if it's clearly in a sensitive area, then it will get found and muggled away pretty quickly anyway. I think that letterboxers have been tolerated for a lot longer than geocachers in this part of Britain.

    After that minor rant, can I make a positive suggestion? I've seen locations where logbook-only caches are the rule, and this has led to a relaxation of restrictions on cache numbers. This is useful where the land is sensitive from a flora and fauna point of view, in that there's seen to be a reduced chance of causing problems with animals (attracted by smelly things left in the box and damaged by discarded litter) and plants (trampled by excited kids rummaging through the contents for twenty minutes a time). Could there be something along these lines negotiated, i.e. the current caches are left as they are and further caches are to be strictly logbook only? I believe that the reason that letterboxes are tolerated more easily is the lack of swap items.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    I have positive indications from the FC for an increase but don't expect a huge increase and they expect us to manage the numbers in the future. They haven't actually said that they won't ever increase the numbers in the future but it's clear we won't be able to go back again in the near future.

    Consequently, I'd like to get peoples' ideas on how the numbers should be managed. For example, we are limited to the total number of physical containers, how would people feel about a rile of one container per cache? How about a limit on the lifetime of a cache? Dizzy Pair suggested a 500m proximity rule? Any other ideas?

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Thanks for asking.
    But...
    before off-target suggestions start rolling in, perhaps you could let us know what they're concerned about? Is there a reason for the limit? Would there be more tolerance if caches were placed within reach of hard surfaces (for instance)? What about logbook-only caches as per Canadian National Parks? Do they prefer micros? Is it the wear and tear to the grass by three cachers per week that causes them to worry? Or danger to wildlife?
    And so on.

    If we don't know the problem, it's difficult to suggest sensible solutions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •