Clarification please

[markandlynn]

I do take your point about the bag that's been temporarily stashed by a climber, and I do think it's a very valid one. I think, though, that regardless of the ins and outs of it, and probably even regardless of the legality, landowners are in practice going to remove caches they find on their land and don't want there. The more we can do to avoid such situations, the better for all cachers in the UK.

I genuinely cannot remember how contact was established when those NF caches were removed, but contact was made and the NF returned the caches to GAGB to try to reunite them with their owners. I believe we've still got a few unclaimed ones sitting in someone's garage.

Interesting point Andy on the camera bag.

If they had handed them into the police as lost property they would also be covered.

Which reminds me that a local lost property officer advised me that there were quite few unclaimed ammo boxes in the lost property store.

[jacobite]

Indeed, but when it inevitably happens we shouldn't just say "the landowner has every right to dictate (etc.)". If a compromise is negotiated it should also involve the land manager realising that he may have overreacted, and may in legal terms even be the offender!
Anyway, enough of this; back to the thread..

I would do everything I could to avoid telling a landowner/manager that they had overreacted, or start quoting them legal terms regarding permissions. We have permission agreements in place that started as total bans, these bans have been turned around though friendly negotiation and finding the middle ground that both parties are happy with. Quoting legal terms will only lead to doors being shut, making permission agreements harder to obtain (regardless of whether the landowner/manager is in the wrong).

[Happy Humphrey]

I would do everything I could to avoid telling a landowner/manager that they had overreacted, or start quoting them legal terms regarding permissions.

I agree that you wouldn't simply tell them; but that doesn't contradict what I posted. It's merely a question of how tactful and diplomatic you can be. Because surely we have an obligation to make sure that we are clear about the legal footing of cache placing/removal, and to ensure (ideally) that the land manager is also in the know?

[Alan White]

Groundspeak being the organisation that owns the geocaching game we play

I beg your pardon ? Groundspeak most certainly do not "own the geocaching game we play". Groundspeak run a listing site: the game is owned by us.

[Alan White]

Because surely we have an obligation to make sure that we are clear about the legal footing of cache placing/removal, and to ensure (ideally) that the land manager is also in the know?

Indeed so. HH is much more diplomatic than I, but what I would say (and have said) is that GAGB and many cachers automatically assume that we have no right to pursue our hobby and we should be grateful for any crumbs that a land manager happens to throw our way.

I say that we have every right to pursue our hobby and that GAGB and many cachers, rather than kowtowing as happens now, should be more vociferous in trying to protect and enhance the hobby.

[nobbynobbs]

I say that we have every right to pursue our hobby and that GAGB and many cachers, rather than kowtowing as happens now, should be more vociferous in trying to protect and enhance the hobby.

So while you don't agree with the GAGB and are annoyed of our so called "rules" being imposed upon you. You now want us to be more viciferous in approaching more landowners and getting more of them to agree to our guidelines to expand the area that we have agreements in.
Thank you for finally seeming to agree to the GAGB and give your blessing for us to continue the hard work that goes on to enhance the caching experience in the UK.

[Icenians]

continue the hard work that goes on to enhance the caching experience in the UK.

In your opinion.

Some of us do not share this opinion that the GAGB has always had of itself.

Personally I believe the GAGB has not enhanced anything in this game.

It's only real achievement has been to get limited caching in one part of the country. Previously we were able to cache in all the places covered by agreements now.

It is simple arrogance that a tiny proportion of cachers feel they are right in their view of caching in the UK and that view should be imposed on the rest of us.

[Matrix]

In your opinion.

Some of us do not share this opinion that the GAGB has always had of itself.

Personally I believe the GAGB has not enhanced anything in this game.

It's only real achievement has been to get limited caching in one part of the country. Previously we were able to cache in all the places covered by agreements now.

It is simple arrogance that a tiny proportion of cachers feel they are right in their view of caching in the UK and that view should be imposed on the rest of us.

In your profile it says that you like landrovers does that mean you think that 4x4's should have unlimited access to land as well ?

And before you label me a 4x4 basher look at my interests and list of TB's on GC
:wacko:

[Icenians]

In your profile it says that you like landrovers does that mean you think that 4x4's should have unlimited access to land as well ?

And before you label me a 4x4 basher look at my interests and list of TB's on GC
:wacko:

Not at all. I don't see the relevance.

Are you suggesting then that as I don't think the GAGB is needed, that I am irresponsible and simply do as I please?

Have I said I want unlimited access to anything?

In fact I would argue that the GAGB negociation with the New Forest should have resulted in an agreement that if you want to place a cache in the New Forest, you must be a GAGB member and follow their guidelines. That would have caused me less of a problem than the current agreement. It would have been honest! I see no problem with anyone following the guidelines, rules, ethos, etc of an organisation they sign up to.

As I've said before, I have a problem with the PRINCIPLES that are being set.

Kev

[Matrix]

The relevance is/was (for me at least organisiations like CRAG TRF GAGB etc) is that there are rules/guidelines or whatever that we all have to adhere to and If someone is prepared and has the time to negotiate on behalf of the minority that it benefits the majority as well. I for one dont have the time or the intelligence to do this.

This is my last post on this subject as I have already wasted too much time on the subject.

and there are more pressing matters than this .....:coffee:

[Bill D (wwh)]

Icenians wrote:
Personally I believe the GAGB has not enhanced anything in this game.

It's only real achievement has been to get limited caching in one part of the country. Previously we were able to cache in all the places covered by agreements now.

Yes, you were "able" to cache in them, but all too often without the landowner's knowledge or agreement. That's the way things were in the early days of caching in the US, and as landowners became aware of what was happening that led to blanket bans on caching on large areas of land, and charges for permits to cache in many areas. GAGB has tried, and continues to try, to avoid those things happening in this country.

[Graculus]

I beg your pardon ? Groundspeak most certainly do not "own the geocaching game we play". Groundspeak run a listing site: the game is owned by us.

Hmm once again you won't answer a direct question. I refer you back to your comment in a previous post, "Groundspeak use the GAGB rules as hard and fast rules that apply to all cachers in the UK regardless of whether the cacher is or isn't a member of GAGB". And I asked the question where you got this information from that Groundspeak have made this statement?

Well, will you give me the courtesy of an answer? Or can I assume that if you do not answer the question you don't in fact have the answer?

Here is my post in which I asked the question.

Chris (Mr Blorenge)