Representing the GAGB

[Tim and June]

We rarely if ever wander into the GC.com forums now, but as founders of the GAGB we have been informed about the thread started by Moot (HERE) and thought we should take a look.

We find it beyond belief that a committee member of the GAGB should get involved in such a controversial manner. The role should be to help, guide and advise. A nice friendly “arm round shoulder” sort of feeling.


What sort of impression does this confrontational approach give to land owners about the elected representative of geocaching in the UK ?

Believe me, Land owners DO read our forums, we found that out by experience.


Is it time for the GAGB Chairman and the rest of the committee to take this situation in hand ?

[moote01]

So a cachers ignorance and there subsequent refusal to add a comment on a cache about the clear danger of a cache being 3m up a rock face is acceptable, the cache owner is irresponsible, as I said in the forums Death is far more serious than Trespass. What that comment reflects is that we treat Trespass as being wrong, but in instances of Trespass no one usually is placed in danger. But blatantly putting a caches in a public place in a dangerous position and to:

• Not give a hint of the position
• Surround the cache with largish rock (twice the size of a brick), which if pulled on could cause a person serious issues
• Remove a comment in a valid log about the dangers
• Not place a clear and visible warning that the cache is potentially dangerous to recover
• To initially rate the cache as terrain 1

Now look at it this way, a Landowner has a Vicarious Liability for actions / events which happen on his land, that Liability is real and is one of the main reasons Landowners refuse permission for public assess or recreational activities.

I have caved and climbed for many years and I know probably as well, if not better Landowner issues with potentially dangerous situations, we MUST give clear warnings of danger. If a cacher feels that would make his/her cache easy well that does show a lack of concern and arrogance, as Life is the important thing and not Tupperware.

That is why I made the comments I did and the analogy with the Nuclear Bunker cache, that is what it was showing the balance on things in reality.

I'll be happy to step down from GAGB if anyone of the Committee will post the following words in this public forum:

Landowner issues are far more important than a person's life.

If any of the committee believe the above then yes I'm in the wrong post.

It is easy for someone who has not done this series to level criticism at me, but until you see the situation how can you feel qualified to do so.

Thanks

Milton David Grimshaw

[John Stead]

I go away for a weekend and another controversial thread heats up, boils over and is closed down over on the Groundpseak Forum.
It is a shame Moote responded as he did as I am sure a polite email to the cache owners expressing his concern would have been effective. I have not been to the cache yet myself so am not qualified to comment on the rights or wrongs but feel that Moote was sincere in his concern - I just wish he had been more tactful in his expression but I know he is always ready to stick his neck out for something he believes in, even though this stirs things up in a way which some of us feel undesirable.
As for his membership of the GAGB Committee, I supported his candidature and while the rest of the Committee may wish to consider if his contributions to that topic were wise, I know that he is always ready to help anyone along and hope he can bring fresh ideas to bear, even if to get them over he has to learn a little moderation.
I wrote the above before Moote posted his reply to Tim & June and stand by it.

[markandlynn]

Responding here as the GC thread is shut down.

The initial start point for any cache issues is your online log your log contained a spoiler and was deleted because of it. Pure simple no argument guidelines state Do not include spoilers in your logs.

You then email the owner about the cache ratings and description.

If there is no progress you email the approvers.

If you felt it was such an immediate danger a Should Be Archived log gets immediate attention.

Jumping into an open forum read by landowners and others is a LAST resort not a first line of attack in effect you posted a SBA in the forums.

You need to take things through proper channels something you as a member of the GAGB you should always do.

Lead by example and follow the "objects of the GAGB"

C - Objects
The GAGB's objects ("the objects") are:


To enhance geocaching and to progress it as an activity within Great Britain and Northern Ireland by:

liaising with land owners, agreeing mutually beneficial guidelines so that caching on their land is approved and encouraged (for members and non-members alike)
helping all associates to enjoy the activity without falling foul of the civil and criminal laws of the land
establishing good caching practices by accepting advice from land, environmental, archaeological, historical and other relevant bodies
acting as intermediaries, and being the first point of call for all interested parties in Great Britain
ensuring that the positive educational, environmental and recreational aspects of geocaching are properly represented
helping new members of the geocaching community when they begin
To keep membership of GAGB free of charge.

To keep GAGB "non-commercial".

[Tim and June]

Moote,

Please re-read my post.

Though it would seem that those who were with you when you visited the cache appear to disagree with you, I was not commenting upon whether or not you are correct.

I did however question your tone.

Please pay particular attention to the following words I used in my post:

controversial manner
A nice friendly “arm round shoulder”
confrontational approach


T&J

[moote01]

It was not a spoiler it was a clear indication that there was danger involved and that as such the danger required logging

Death is not something I take lightly if others do then that is just showing a lack of care for an other person. Believe me if a person becomes injured or killed whilst caching then Landowners will start to close any agreements to cache on there land.

This has happened in caving and climbing, the effect on my caving is that I have to be insured for 3rd party liabilities and that is not cheap. If cachers start requiring insurance then what will become of the sport.

I will stand by my judgement of posting in the thread, as the last person I politely email about a cache issue decided to make it an issue in the forums.

Common sense is required when placing a cache in a location which is beyond the average persons reach and that means placing a clear warning, no amount of being smart can be better than a person's right to safety. It was clear from the whole series that the placer was attempting to deceive people with incorrect Terrain ratings.

I feel that people who have not done the cache, and people who have not been involved in situations that involve cliff rescue of a seriously injured person have no right to comment. I have done the cache and been involved with person recovery from quarries etc so I feel that my qualifications there are above and beyond all others.

Milton David Grimshaw

[markandlynn]

Did you post a SBA on the cache ?

[Bill D (wwh)]

Milton, as I've said privately, if you felt that the cache was dangerous then of course you were right to take steps to get that attended to.

The issue that has upset so many people here is not that you objected to the cache, but the manner in which you did so. As has been said above, a private message to the placer, and if you felt the matter was urgent then an SBA log, would have addressed things perfectly well.

Your posts in yesterday's thread did, as Tim has said, become very confrontational, and were in my opinion unfortunate from a committee member of GAGB.

Can I ask you again, please, to re-read that thread and try to see it in the way in which it has come over to so many people?

[The Hokesters]

Talking of sticking your neck out - here goes...

I truly think it is time this was taken behind closed doors, dealt with and resolved before posting back into the public forum on GAGB's stance.

Please don't shoot the messenger!

[moote01]

Originally posted by markandlynn@Jan 23 2006, 01:04 PM
Did you post a SBA on the cache ?

It is not a case of archive the cache but a case of giving a warnings and correct terrain grading. I made a comment in my log for all to read. This the owner deleted.

The owner appeared to be unconcerned by the fact that they did not warn of the danger.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Bill D (wwh)@Jan 23 2006, 01:05 PM
Milton, as I've said privately, if you felt that the cache was dangerous then of course you were right to take steps to get that attended to.

The issue that has upset so many people here is not that you objected to the cache, but the manner in which you did so. As has been said above, a private message to the placer, and if you felt the matter was urgent then an SBA log, would have addressed things perfectly well.

Your posts in yesterday's thread did, as Tim has said, become very confrontational, and were in my opinion unfortunate from a committee member of GAGB.

Can I ask you again, please, to re-read that thread and try to see it in the way in which it has come over to so many people?

Bill

I will respond to you email in due course and take the appropriate action on that.

As I said above SBA was not needed, just a far better indication that some danger might be involved, I placed an indication in my log that the cache required this the log gave little away it just warned of the dangers, this was deleted by the owner, to me that shows that they have scant concern for other people safety.

The placer of the cache though appears to be trying to mislead as they said it was 5ft off the ground, this was clearly not the case as it was above my arms reach and surrounded by small boulders these could easily cause injury if grabbed whilst climbing for the cache.

Milton

I also stand by my comments.

I do not believe the cache was in a position to place a cacher at unacceptable risk.

I was there with Milton at the time and expressed at the time that the terrain needed raising but that was in my opinion all that was needed.

Milton is honest in his belief that it represented a danger, a view which I do not share. He is however entitled to his opinion.

I also believe that an email to the cache owner would have resolved this quite quickly.

Regards

Tony

[marinor]

I have read the comments on both forums twice, and whilst I can understand the comments on the 'lack of diplomacy' in certain areas, I am with Moote 100% on his factual statements.
I too have seen the results of small falls (less than 3mtrs) two of which provd fatal.

In the shipping industry over the last 10 years, any vertical ladder of more than 2mtrs has to have safety hoops and a back bar. The code of safe working practices states that anyone working above a height of 2mtrs MUST wear a safety harness.

The people that made these rules are experts, and do not make them for fun. This is a game, that without the correct info could turn into a tragedy.
Listen to experts, and I am sure if the cache setter had added a warning line such as, be careful, access to cache may involve some climbing, safety headgear should be worn. Then I am sure this would not have extended beyond a few posts.

Again, I state that I agree with Moote 100% on his assessment of the cache placement and the dangers. I do however add that a little more diplomacy between both moote and the cache placer could have helped.

stay safe
Bill

Ah but if it were only true that your feet ever need to be more than 3 foot of the ground to reach the cache from a broad easily accessible ledge.

Some exageration going on here.

I was there

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jan 23 2006, 07:41 PM
Ah but if it were only true that your feet ever need to be more than 3 foot of the ground to reach the cache from a broad easily accessible ledge.

Some exageration going on here.

I was there

One slip and you can die, not everyone is good with heights, also grabbing one of the rocks that are it's cover could cause a serious head injury, and if you were caching alone who would know where you were!

This Cache should have some indication other than grade about it, the cache page just makes it look like another walk up and find. There is NO indication in the page of anything! The owner was abrupt at deleting my warning show lack of care for others.

It is patently clear that this lack of warnings could future jeopardise caching in the UK if landowners and their respective Insurers decided that caching could be a risk. Go and look at some other hobbies which are now finding it hard to compete with insurance needs, you will be amazed that many considered safe past times are in an insurance nightmare due to the Insurance companies not wanting to shoulder the risk.

I have re opened this topic just to say Well done to Milton on a very public appology.

Hopefully this will be the ned of it.

Best of British

Tony

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by marinor@Jan 23 2006, 06:42 PM
In the shipping industry over the last 10 years, any vertical ladder of more than 2mtrs has to have safety hoops and a back bar. The code of safe working practices states that anyone working above a height of 2mtrs MUST wear a safety harness.

I also know that EC regulations say that if you have any manure in your garden which is more than 12 months old you MUST have a "Hazardous Waste Licence". The same applies to a compost heap. :lol: :lol:

I have read somewhere that people who employ gardeners must provide thick leather gloves to save their employees from, for instance, pricking themselves on a bramble and it becoming infected. (watch out when you are caching then)


Anyway, 'nuff said other than to thank Moote for his apology (well done) and keep fingers crossed that we can find a less confrontational approach in future.

I love that warm feeling of a friendly arm-round-the-shoulder.



Happs cachin,
T&J

[edited to correct spelling]