Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 75

Thread: New Forest & The Forestry Commission

  1. #1
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    This thread on GC.com looks like a job for the GAGB... Thanks Eckington!

    I guess somebody needs to do something here before we are banned from FC land. I'd already heard that the FC had issues with us... from caching and other sources, and it seems it's getting worse. Don't want to re-state what's been said on GC.com so will just leave it at that for now.

    Cheers,
    Neil.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fawley, Southampton
    Posts
    24

    Default

    I mailed T&J (as they are now chair&#33 yesterday and am currently awaiting their reply .
    Sarah xx

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    For completeness, I'll repeat our post from GC.com here.


    This situation is going to be difficult to resolve.

    Some months ago we were in negotiation with Forest Enterprise (who oversee The Forester Commission, we are told) and were at the final stages of blanket approval on their land provided we stuck to the guidelines (very similar to HCC with a couple of minor additions). At the final hurdle the head honcho's quoted the UK forum (this thread) where some cachers were saying that alcohol food etc were okay in caches despite what the guidelines say (not quoted verbatim so please read the thread). Sorry to bring that up again ! The result was posted in this thread.

    Please read/re-read those threads carefully, a lot is explained.

    This was partly the reason the GAGB was formed. If we could get cachers to agree sensible guidelines could we approach land owners ? . . .

    We have tried to talk to the Forestry Commission in Lyndhurst, but they are not very helpful. I have heard of discussion (cannot find the pages on the web now) where the FC in the New Forest wanted to ban dog walkers, so I think there is little chance that we will get very far. Head office seems to be the only way to go.

    In speaking to a member of the Verderers Court (peculiar to the NF) He said of the local FC as "Humpf! Tin Gods", wouldn't waste my time talking to them".

    The problems caching faces in this sort of area are compounded by more recent posts where cachers still proclaim theat they do not want rules and guidelines.

    To be fair, if you were a land-owner and somebody asked you, then you looked at the forums, what would you say ?

    "Oh yes, I can see that you cannot follow your own guidelines, but that gives me confidence that you will follow our ours, so go ahead !"
    I don't think so !


    Anyway, for the time being, I guess the only way to put a cache in the New Forest is to make it "members only" until the situation is resolved. Alternatively, make it a big and very difficult multi so it takes all day to do, cachers might do it, but I doubt if a Ranger would spend all day doing it.
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  4. #4
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    Hmm...glad I&#39;ve not got around to planting "A View from a Ridge" yet&#33; I did originally consider making that a multi, perhaps I&#39;ll return to that - although Be Prepared has been confirmed missing by the owners and that was a multi.

    Interestingly, No Tree Cover (New Forest) Part S is one of the ones reportedly missing (unconfirmed at time of typing) - although it&#39;s part of a New Forest based multi, it is itself some way outside the forest boundary.

    Paul

  5. #5
    Motley Crew Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Sep 24 2003, 03:20 PM
    Hmm...glad I&#39;ve not got around to planting "A View from a Ridge" yet&#33; I did originally consider making that a multi, perhaps I&#39;ll return to that - although Be Prepared has been confirmed missing by the owners and that was a multi.

    Interestingly, No Tree Cover (New Forest) Part S is one of the ones reportedly missing (unconfirmed at time of typing) - although it&#39;s part of a New Forest based multi, it is itself some way outside the forest boundary.

    Paul
    It seems someone has an idea of what has been going on. Take a look at this post on GC.COM
    Posting

    Now how somone in Warwick should be aware of this intrigues me ......

  6. #6
    Motley Crew Guest

    Default

    It seems the New Forest aims are very similar to ours. Look here Caring for the New Forest

    I think th following quote is rather apt.
    We want you to explore and share the fascinating treasures safely locked away in the forest; once discovered you fall under its spell.
    This is also interesting (quoted from New Forest Pride Week. )
    Join the big 30th birthday for New Forest Pride Week


    Can you help out with one of the biggest annual litter campaigns in the South of England?

    If you love the New Forest, there’s a way you can give something back, by joining in with New Forest Pride Week from 4 to 13 April.

    2003 is the 30th birthday of this successful event, and there are bound to be some special celebrations.

    Coordinated by New Forest District Council and the Forestry Commission, New Forest Pride Week gives everyone a chance to do their bit for the environment by clearing up discarded litter and rubbish.

    Volunteers with some spare time and lots of enthusiasm are welcome to take part in the collections, with sacks and gloves provided.

    People with a good knowledge of local organisations in their community are also needed, to coordinate groups to litter pick in villages or towns.

    “Many people have helped out with New Forest Pride Week in the past, and we hope that many more will do so in this special anniversary year,” said Councillor Paul Woods, NFDC environment portfolio holder.

    “We all love the unpolluted beauty of the New Forest and it’s commendable that local residents are willing to give up some of their free time to help keep the Forest attractive and litter-free.”

    To find out more about New Forest Pride Week 2003, please contact Emma Cookson, waste and recycling officer, New Forest District Council, on 023 8028 5938 or Alexis Reeve at the Forestry Commission on 023 8028 3141.
    An example of Cache In Trash Out - too late for this year but maybe cachers would like to help out next year IF some common ground for cache placement can be agreed :P .

  7. #7
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Sep 24 2003, 01:39 PM
    Anyway, for the time being, I guess the only way to put a cache in the New Forest is to make it "members only" until the situation is resolved. Alternatively, make it a big and very difficult multi so it takes all day to do, cachers might do it, but I doubt if a Ranger would spend all day doing it.
    With respect, would planting any caches in the forest be a good idea? It seems that right now they don&#39;t want us to do this, and thus we will be breaking the game&#39;s guidelines when it comes to seeking landowner permission.

    As their objection to us was down to us not being able to follow our own guidelines, I feel that the GAGB should be seeking landowner permission before anybody plants another cache. If we place multis that take a long time I too doubt that they will follow them and remove the boxes, but I also feel that them being aware of them will be enough to have us met with a brick wall when we go to negotiate with them.

    As already stated, there&#39;s a very similar game, letterboxing, that is very active in the forest, and maybe we could get a similar approval to them. Maybe we can ask TPTB in letterboxing for a look at their (his) agreement with the FC and draft out something very similar to approach the FC with?

    Neil.

  8. #8
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Sep 25 2003, 06:01 AM
    With respect, would planting any caches in the forest be a good idea?
    NattyBooshka&#39;s right...we have a route now, to someone who seems to know what&#39;s going on. Let&#39;s not upset any potential apple carts by planting new caches now, when maybe this could all be resolved fairly quickly IF we go about it the right way.

    Paul

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Oops &#33; Guess I didn&#39;t word that too well, perhaps I should have said "If you are determined to place a cache in the NF ... "

    Sorry &#33;


    As already stated, there&#39;s a very similar game, letterboxing, that is very active in the New Forest, and maybe we could get a similar approval to them. Maybe we can ask TPTB in letterboxing for a look at their (his) agreement with the FC and draft out something very similar to approach the FC with?
    That would be a very good idea except it&#39;s not just the FC we have to be concerned about. We have had some resistance from the letterboxers who do not want us in the forest. Perhaps they are afraid of loosing their own status quo with the Forestry Commission. Form our discussions, we are unlikely to get any help from them.

    The way we two see it, is that if they have permission to place ‘micro’ containers in the forest why should we not be able to place ‘micros’. ( I feel something about Human rights and discrimination coming on here.) More importantly, as most cachers will know (and the letterboxes who have cached) regular sized caches usually result in much less disturbance of the area than a micro or film canister does. Another important point is that we restrict the number of caches to .1 mile between them. I read/was told of a letterboxer who sat on a rock to eat his pic-nic, and then realised that there were 3 lotterboxes under the rock he was sat on &#33; OK, I guess it must have been a big rock.
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  10. #10
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Letterboxers are not against us... I just feel that they don&#39;t want to go through this whole approval thing again. One of their guidlines was NO PUBLICITY, so I guess we can&#39;t match that for an internet moderated game. So yes, they can place and we cannot... not descrimination, just that we publicise it, and thier guidleines prohibit this. No way round this... a members only cache is still very much publicised&#33;

    I&#39;m sure that there is the odd letterboxer who is totally against what we do, but they are a very small minority. Likewise, I&#39;m sure that we have cachers who are opposed to letterboxing.

    I assume that the FC are removing the caches, and that they are logging onto GC.com to get the co-ordinates. Is it not, therefore, a good idea for GAGB to be seen to be saying that their members should not place in the new forest. I feel comments along the lines of let&#39;s hide it from them, even if qualified with "If your absolutely determined..." will not do geocaching or GAGB any favours if seen on the forums. I&#39;d suggest that any official comment from GAGB needs to be made very soon and must, in my opinion, be worded very strongly. I&#39;m not having a go here Tim, I just feel that your words could be misread by the FC and as our chairman could mean that the FC would be unwilling to discuss this matter with us.

    Neil.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Sep 25 2003, 01:20 PM
    I assume that the FC are removing the caches, and that they are logging onto GC.com to get the co-ordinates. Is it not, therefore, a good idea for GAGB to be seen to be saying that their members should not place in the new forest. I feel comments along the lines of let&#39;s hide it from them, even if qualified with "If your absolutely determined..." will not do geocaching or GAGB any favours if seen on the forums. I&#39;d suggest that any official comment from GAGB needs to be made very soon and must, in my opinion, be worded very strongly.
    On the whole, I would agree with you. The problem seems to be that the FC in the New Forest have shown in the past that they are not too willing to open much of a dialogue. We have made a number of attempts and met with evasive and closed replies. Each time the person we speak to falls back on the local bylaws and says something along the lines of "No, you can&#39;t do that because of the bylaws." And when asked to elaborate, they can&#39;t. When asked about obtaining a copy of the bylaws that they are using, "don&#39;t know", "can&#39;t help".

    A prime example of this is parking in the New Forest at night. We approached the local FC on the subject because a letterboxer had made a complaint to the placer of a cache quoting the bylaw which says
    "No person shall on the lands of the Commissioners:- park or leave unattended motor vehicle between the hours of sunset and sunrise except by the side of the highway for a stop of reasonable duration for refreshment or other reasonable cause"
    Approach was made to FC locally which was met with evasiveness and a simple "NO", no opportunity to open a dialogue. As it turns out, this bylaw applies to all land managed by the Forestry Commission, so I contacted head office and spoke to a person who was much more receptive and helpful. The reply indicated that there are many reasons to stop parking after dark, the obvious one being poachers, (also of course caravans and camper-vans staying the night). However there are also many reasons why people might like to park up and walk away from the roadside, watching nature and the stars (avoiding light pollution) are just a couple. He could see no problem provided cachers did not appear to be poachers or attempting to stay overnight etc. and the car parks were considered part of the highway.

    Another example: A question over placing caches in disused animal holes. We were told (by a letterboxer) that the practice was illegal in the New Forest (we have since found out that this is a criminal offence nationally for MOST animal holes see see this page). Approach to FC was made to try to: A ). confirm the situation and B ). find out more so we could advise cachers.

    FC
    "No, you can&#39;t do that it&#39;s against the bylaws".
    T&J
    "Oh, thank you, can you tell me which one, I have read as much as I can but cannot find any reference."
    FC
    "No person shall in or on the lands of the commissioners dig up, remove, cut or injure any tree, shrub or plant whether living or not or remove the seeds thereon or dig up or remove any soil turf, leaf mould, moss, peat, gravel, flag sand or minerals of any kind."
    I guess that what this all comes down to is that the local FC is difficult in the extreme to deal with, unwilling to listen and unconstructive etc. If the GAGB or any other body for that matter simply accepts this, then the status quo will continue. We will have no further room to advance because we have been seen by them to accept the situation and we will continue to accept it.

    However, if we can reach an agreement with the FC, the GAGB will fight tooth and nail to defend and maintain that agreement.

    There is still, even at this stage, work continuing on a local level. As soon as we can make any announcement, we will, but this is very tentative and publicising too much too early could interfere with that (its happened before).

    There is the other side of the coin here. If there are caches in the NF and they can see that there has been no damage or significant disturbance to the location . . .

    We are both (T&J) willing to accept that we could be wrong in the above considerations, and once the committee is sorted out, this will be one of the first things to be dealt with. Till then, our apologies if our thoughts do not coincide with those of the members.

    I&#39;m not having a go here Tim, I just feel that your words could be misread by the FC and as our chairman could mean that the FC would be unwilling to discuss this matter with us.
    Of course you are not "having a go" Neil, understand completely what and why you are saying that, and thanks for your thoughts. (but don&#39;t forget June, &#39;cos we are a "team".)

    I guess it is also true to say that our post could have been a little out of order though.
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  12. #12
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    HEHE Sorry... not having a go at June either&#33;

    Hopefully we can sort out this sorry mess... if not I&#39;ll just be letterboxing when down in the NF next... would love to do both.

    Neil.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Amesbury Wiltshire
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Here is an idea for you all to consider at this time. Why not change all the caches in the FC area to Virtual Caches. i.e Wilverly Oak can be changed to supply a photo of GPS etc near to the tree remains, Little Portugal can use the Potuguese Fireplace the same way.
    Also if no publicity is sought instead of changing to members only caches, which at this time seems to be a bit expensive when I have only seen two so far in my area. Or change the GC.com to Password Only access after a nominal fee has been paid, That way it can only be seen by people playing the game and not by the general public (muggles).
    Colin & Daphne aka The Wobbly Club

  14. #14
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by The Wobbly Club@Sep 27 2003, 04:31 PM
    Here is an idea for you all to consider at this time. Why not change all the caches in the FC area to Virtual Caches.
    I was wondering the same thing myself...but since we currently have our chairman trying to resolve the whole issue, we need to be careful not to antagonise the FC. If we&#39;re SURE their objection is only to having things left in the forest, and don&#39;t object to virtuals, then great. If they&#39;re concerned about loads of people visiting sensitive areas (there are some in the NF), having virtuals in those areas won&#39;t help.

    I&#39;d certainly support Little Canada, Little Portugal, and They Flew From The Forest all being made virtuals if necessary: These caches are all close to monuments to the fallen, and these places deserve to be visited.

    Paul

  15. #15
    Motley Crew Guest

    Default


    I was wondering the same thing myself...but since we currently have our chairman trying to resolve the whole issue, we need to be careful not to antagonise the FC. If we&#39;re SURE their objection is only to having things left in the forest, and don&#39;t object to virtuals, then great.
    Short of removing the referenced item I cant see how &#39;they&#39; can object to viruals let alone stop them.

    If they&#39;re concerned about loads of people visiting sensitive areas (there are some in the NF), having virtuals in those areas won&#39;t help.
    If &#39;they&#39; are concerned about sensitive areas then surely the area should be fenced off so that no one can interfere. The way things are going it seems certain people consider the whole place to be a &#39;sensitive&#39; area, perhaps it should all be surrounded by barbed wire fences and become a total exclusion zone thus giving the rangers their own private playground.

Posting Permissions

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