Thanks Thanks:  5
Results 1 to 32 of 32

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    675

    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
    2,145

    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.


    Caching since 2001
    Founder member of GAGB (2003)
    Committee (2003-2013)
    Chair of GAGB (2010-2012)
    Negotiator of 18 Landowner Agreements
    GAGB Friend

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

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


    Caching since 2001
    Founder member of GAGB (2003)
    Committee (2003-2013)
    Chair of GAGB (2010-2012)
    Negotiator of 18 Landowner Agreements
    GAGB Friend

  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

Posting Permissions

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