G A G B Guidelines

[moote01]

I have been informed from GC.com, that the guidelies published on this website do not hold any weight in their eyes.

The guideline you quoted, "no cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)" Is not a Groundspeak, Inc. guideline and therefore does not apply to caches listed on Geocaching.com.

Is this correct? Can we place caches in areas such as drystone walls, SAMs, SSSIs etc? Is this just plain stupid, that GC.com do not recognise local rules, many of which are produced by statute.

Moote

I believe this question has been answered several times by the local reviewers.

It is a question for them please take it there.

[moote01]

I have previously sought permission to post topics like this in these forums.

It is an issue which affects the GAGB, as it is the guidelines which the GAGB stand for that are being ignored, for a set of American rules.

If you feel this topic is unsuitable for here then use your powers as a moderator of the forum and close it.

Sorry Moote not being baited. Post away mate.

[Lactodorum]

I don't normally post here but just to allay any fears GAGB members may have from Moote's selective quotation. The full text of the answer received from groundspeak was:

I have great faith in our reviewers and have spoken to them regarding
this issue. The guideline you quoted, "no cache should be placed in such
a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)" Is not a
Groundspeak, Inc. guideline and therefore does not apply to caches
listed on Geocaching.com. The people in charge of the cave have issued
the following which is more than enough permission needed for the cave.

I would like to remind people that local reviewers DO take into account local issues. That's all I want to say on the matter here.

[Bill D (wwh)]

Gc.com UK reviewers aren't in any way bound by GAGB's guidelines - they're required to work to gc.com's guidelines. There seems to be some confusion over this in the Groundspeak forums on occasion.

But there is a degree of flexibility, and as Lac says, they do take account of local issues. Also, there are situations where a landowner agreement requires that caches placed on their land must meet GAGB guidelines. If one of them doesn't, then technically at least, it doesn't have landowner permission. I know our reviewers take matters like that into consideration too.

[MCL]

Originally posted by moote01@May 21 2006, 12:55 PM
I have been informed from GC.com, that the guidelies published on this website do not hold any weight in their eyes.

Is this correct? Can we place caches in areas such as drystone walls, SAMs, SSSIs etc? Is this just plain stupid, that GC.com do not recognise local rules, many of which are produced by statute.

Moote

I'm surprised the question was asked in the first place. To add to what Bill has said above, people often forget that the guidelines are only guidelines and not rules (since they can't be enforced on cachers in general), and there is no reason why the US-based GC.com should be held to account over them. They never published them, and never negotiated them, and have their own guidelines anyway.

When the question is posed as to whether "we" can place caches in certain areas, then the answer is no "we" shouldn't be doing that because as members of GAGB we are supposed to be upholding the guidelines of the GAGB. It's one of the things we agree when we come on board. But that has nothing to do with what non GAGB cachers may do or be allowed to do. Sure it would be nice if they stuck to them, and I'm sure many do, but you can't lay down the iron rod of law to people who have not agreed and aren't members. And that of course includes all the US owners of GC.com....

The guidelines that happen to be backed up by statute are a different matter slightly, and of course to place things in legally restricted areas is plainly not allowed. However, even in this case, it is not GC.com's responsibility to enforce UK law. That's the job of the police. So once again the answer is that GC has nothing to say but "its not our call, folks!"

[nobbynobbs]

:wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

[moote01]

Originally posted by MCL+May 22 2006, 02:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MCL @ May 22 2006, 02:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 21 2006, 12:55 PM
I have been informed from GC.com, that the guidelies published on this website do not hold any weight in their eyes.

Is this correct? Can we place caches in areas such as drystone walls, SAMs, SSSIs etc? Is this just plain stupid, that GC.com do not recognise local rules, many of which are produced by statute.

Moote

I&#39;m surprised the question was asked in the first place. To add to what Bill has said above, people often forget that the guidelines are only guidelines and not rules (since they can&#39;t be enforced on cachers in general), and there is no reason why the US-based GC.com should be held to account over them. They never published them, and never negotiated them, and have their own guidelines anyway.

When the question is posed as to whether "we" can place caches in certain areas, then the answer is no "we" shouldn&#39;t be doing that because as members of GAGB we are supposed to be upholding the guidelines of the GAGB. It&#39;s one of the things we agree when we come on board. But that has nothing to do with what non GAGB cachers may do or be allowed to do. Sure it would be nice if they stuck to them, and I&#39;m sure many do, but you can&#39;t lay down the iron rod of law to people who have not agreed and aren&#39;t members. And that of course includes all the US owners of GC.com....

The guidelines that happen to be backed up by statute are a different matter slightly, and of course to place things in legally restricted areas is plainly not allowed. However, even in this case, it is not GC.com&#39;s responsibility to enforce UK law. That&#39;s the job of the police. So once again the answer is that GC has nothing to say but "its not our call, folks&#33;" [/b][/quote]
My point here is that if people just places caches where they wish, be they members of the GAGB or not, then the day will come that a lot of the good work which is put into negotiation will fall flat on it face, and landowners could and might prosecute cachers for dumping litter (Geocache).

Is this a situation that we want to get into? No, that is why we have Guidelines, if these are not seen to be being adhered to, then the good work you are doing will be penalized. This will not be good for the game.

The cache in question which Lactodorum refers is not actually on the landowners property, it is underground and belongs to other parties, just in the same way that you do not own the coal under your house. The actual agreement is for passage across the land to the entrance

The access information was taken from a Caving based website and was spacifically arranged for cavers who incidentally now usually have to prove that they have 3rd party public liability insurance.

So where are we at here? It looks like people are assuming far too much, a negotiation between the BCA (and it&#39;s relevant local bodies) can&#39;t be hijacked by any other group of individuals. The high standards set by these bodies should also be looked at, caves normally have specific conservation issues, this cave is one of these places, it is included in the Castleton SSSI and as such is of important, for people to allow the littering of this cave with geocaches in such an area is crass irresponsible and uncaring.

Do we want bodies like the Forestry Commission, English Nature, and Local and Regional Authorities to see that many just do not care about good practices, the signal this cache sends out is that we are not bothered about conservation and negotiation.

But if all the Guidelines are, are Guidelines, then rip them up and start again as you really need to negotiate with GC.com to set a standard that reflects the UK and UK conservation. Without this you are on a road to caches littering some of the most sacred places in the UK.

[The Hokesters]

Am I being dim? Is it not for the reviewers to decide at the end of the day?

[moote01]

Originally posted by The Hokesters@May 22 2006, 12:00 PM
Am I being dim? Is it not for the reviewers to decide at the end of the day?

But the reviewers don&#39;t know about issues of Cave conservation. They see it as a Game, but it is a game that could be terminated by landowners if we act irresponsibly. See this thread as to what is happening

[The Wobbly Club]

HERE WE GO AGAIN.&#33;&#33;&#33;

[moote01]

Originally posted by The Wobbly Club@May 22 2006, 02:40 PM
HERE WE GO AGAIN.&#33;&#33;&#33;

Lets not travel off in another direction.

[t.a.folk]

When the question is posed as to whether "we" can place caches in certain areas, then the answer is no "we" shouldn&#39;t be doing that because as members of GAGB we are supposed to be upholding the guidelines of the GAGB. It&#39;s one of the things we agree when we come on board. But that has nothing to do with what non GAGB cachers may do or be allowed to do. Sure it would be nice if they stuck to them, and I&#39;m sure many do, but you can&#39;t lay down the iron rod of law to people who have not agreed and aren&#39;t members.

If landowners give permission for a cache or caches to be placed on their land on the understanding that G.A.G.B.guidelines are upheld are non G.A.G.B. members excluded from the landowners requirements ?

[Bill D (wwh)]

t.a. folk wrote:
If landowners give permission for a cache or caches to be placed on their land on the understanding that G.A.G.B.guidelines are upheld are non G.A.G.B. members excluded from the landowners requirements ?

No. If a landowner stipulates that caches placed on their land must meet certain requirements, then those requirements apply to anyone placing a cache there.

[nobbynobbs]

ok i can understand the drive behind this thread but not the final direction....


please clarify exactly what the heck you actually want in the end moote.

the guidelines have been agreed. they are not legally enforcable on cachers by the approvers. only the official departmnts ie police etc can do that.

yes people being ignorant can ruin it for all of us and not many of us are so ignorant as to not give a damn but you will always get some idiot who will break all the rules just because they can.

but this is in danger of going way off the rails again... and again and....

so please just as short as possible explain what would make you happy? how can we resolve this issue?

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by moote01@May 22 2006, 11:36 AM
and landowners could and might prosecute cachers for dumping litter (Geocache).

.....................Pot & Kettle....................



From the cache log


"On the way out we collected a good binliner full of rubbish which included a fair amount of broken glass. You&#39;d think that these caving types would be a bit more sensitive,"

[t.a.folk]

QUOTE
t.a. folk wrote:
If landowners give permission for a cache or caches to be placed on their land on the understanding that G.A.G.B.guidelines are upheld are non G.A.G.B. members excluded from the landowners requirements ?

Bill D replied.
"No. If a landowner stipulates that caches placed on their land must meet certain requirements, then those requirements apply to anyone placing a cache there.

What about cachers SEEKING the cache/caches there who are not GAGB members ?

[Bill D (wwh)]

t.a. folk wrote:
What about cachers SEEKING the cache/caches there who are not GAGB members ?

The issue of seekers not observing any requirements of the placer or the landowner is of course a thorny one&#33; I don&#39;t think membership of GAGB is relevant here, though. When it comes down to it, cachers are essentially all individuals and not governed by any central organisation or bound by any set of rules.

If I discovered that the area around a cache of mine was being trashed by irresponsible cachers, or that people were approaching it across private land or any such, then I would either make appropriate changes to the cache or archive it. And I&#39;m sure many other cachers would do the same.

All we can really do about issues like these is to try to police them ourselves as individuals. If someone discovers a situation like that, then a friendly email to the cache owner pointing out the problems is the way to start. If they&#39;re responsive, fine. If not, then if GAGB are informed we&#39;ll try to mediate, as you know. If that doesn&#39;t resolve things then an SBA log, or an email to Lac, Eck or Dec is probably the way to go. But of course the reviewers are in a difficult situation with issues like that. Obviously they can&#39;t get out there to physically check any and every possible problem cache. All they can really do is try to evaluate the situation from afar, and act accordingly.

Given that there are now some ten thousand active caches in the UK, I don&#39;t think we&#39;re doing too badly in this respect, though. Yes, of course there are problems with some caches sometimes, but they&#39;re a tiny minority of that ten thousand.

[nobbynobbs]

moote???????

[MCL]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs@May 24 2006, 04:20 AM
moote???????

Maybe this isn&#39;t a moote point any more...

[t.a.folk]

Apologies to Moote for taking this off topic again .

When the question is posed as to whether "we" can place caches in certain areas, then the answer is no "we" shouldn&#39;t be doing that because as members of GAGB we are supposed to be upholding the guidelines of the GAGB. It&#39;s one of the things we agree when we come on board. But that has nothing to do with what non GAGB cachers may do or be allowed to do. Sure it would be nice if they stuck to them, and I&#39;m sure many do, but you can&#39;t lay down the iron rod of law to people who have not agreed and aren&#39;t members.

There is at least one permissions agreement that states "Gagb Guidleines must be applied " and ..."by hunting this cache you have accepted these conditions" .

[moote01]

Originally posted by dodgydaved+May 23 2006, 06:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dodgydaved @ May 23 2006, 06:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 22 2006, 11:36 AM
and landowners could and might prosecute cachers for dumping litter (Geocache).

.....................Pot & Kettle....................



From the cache log


"On the way out we collected a good binliner full of rubbish which included a fair amount of broken glass. You&#39;d think that these caving types would be a bit more sensitive," [/b][/quote]
Pots and Kettles, nah, so some rubbish was found within a cave entrance, are they positive that it was placed there by Cavers, a sweeping generalisation really. I would guess not as this is a little visited cave due to the extreme danger that is involved it passing beyond the 1st chamber.

[moote01]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs@May 23 2006, 04:08 AM
ok i can understand the drive behind this thread but not the final direction....


please clarify exactly what the heck you actually want in the end moote.

the guidelines have been agreed. they are not legally enforcable on cachers by the approvers. only the official departmnts ie police etc can do that.

yes people being ignorant can ruin it for all of us and not many of us are so ignorant as to not give a damn but you will always get some idiot who will break all the rules just because they can.

but this is in danger of going way off the rails again... and again and....

so please just as short as possible explain what would make you happy? how can we resolve this issue?

I&#39;m trying to get a discussion going on how the GC.com rules (US Based) do not reflect the issues and matters beyond their border.

If GC.com fail to recognise sites such as SSSI and SAM, then it will become a free for all in the UK, not good both ecologically and politically. I wish GC.com to start looking at Global issues and not their own little corner of the planet. Or are we really becoming the 51st State&#33;

[Teasel]

Originally posted by moote01+May 22 2006, 11:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; May 22 2006, 11:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The cache in question which Lactodorum refers is not actually on the landowners property, it is underground and belongs to other parties, just in the same way that you do not own the coal under your house. The actual agreement is for passage across the land to the entrance[/b]

So, who owns the cave itself, and are they happy for the cache to remain?

As I understand it: the cache does not break the Groundspeak rules; the farmer is happy for cachers to cross his land; and even the local cave rescue team are happy. Whether or not it conforms to the GAGB guidelines rather depends on whether the cache risks damage or disturbance to the SSSI. From what I read, far from causing damage, the introduction of geocaching into this cave system has actually improved its condition.

There&#39;s really nothing to be gained by continuing to stamp your foot, saying that in your opinion, caves are "sacred" places where no cache should ever be placed, on principle. Perhaps it might be more fruitful if you spoke to Audra Hurst (the English Nature employee responsible for this SSSI) and found out who owns / is legally responsible for the cave itself? Certainly the only PDO for the Castleton SSSI which is remotely relevant prohibits "Storage of materials in pits, mines, caves", but I somehow doubt storage of a tupperware box is quite what they had in mind by "materials"&#33; :P

<!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 22 2006, 11:36 AM
But if all the Guidelines are, are Guidelines, then rip them up and start again as you really need to negotiate with GC.com to set a standard that reflects the UK and UK conservation.[/quote]
I&#39;m sure many would support Groundspeak allowing regional approvers to set their own rules for geocaching in their country. In the meantime, the GAGB guidelines fill that gap.

[markandlynn]

Originally posted by moote01+May 24 2006, 11:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; May 24 2006, 11:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-nobbynobbs@May 23 2006, 04:08 AM
ok i can understand the drive behind this thread but not the final direction....


please clarify exactly what the heck you actually want in the end moote.

the guidelines have been agreed. they are not legally enforcable on cachers by the approvers. only the official departmnts ie police etc can do that.

yes people being ignorant can ruin it for all of us and not many of us are so ignorant as to not give a damn but you will always get some idiot who will break all the rules just because they can.

but this is in danger of going way off the rails again... and again and....

so please just as short as possible explain what would make you happy? how can we resolve this issue?

I&#39;m trying to get a discussion going on how the GC.com rules (US Based) do not reflect the issues and matters beyond their border.

If GC.com fail to recognise sites such as SSSI and SAM, then it will become a free for all in the UK, not good both ecologically and politically. I wish GC.com to start looking at Global issues and not their own little corner of the planet. Or are we really becoming the 51st State&#33;[/b][/quote]
Id suggest starting a new thread along those lines then otherwise this is a thread drift and a half &#33;&#33; from the original post.

[moote01]

Originally posted by markandlynn+May 24 2006, 12:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (markandlynn @ May 24 2006, 12:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 11:59 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-nobbynobbs

@May 23 2006, 04:08 AM
ok i can understand the drive behind this thread but not the final direction....


please clarify exactly what the heck you actually want in the end moote.

the guidelines have been agreed. they are not legally enforcable on cachers by the approvers. only the official departmnts ie police etc can do that.

yes people being ignorant can ruin it for all of us and not many of us are so ignorant as to not give a damn but you will always get some idiot who will break all the rules just because they can.

but this is in danger of going way off the rails again... and again and....

so please just as short as possible explain what would make you happy? how can we resolve this issue?

I&#39;m trying to get a discussion going on how the GC.com rules (US Based) do not reflect the issues and matters beyond their border.

If GC.com fail to recognise sites such as SSSI and SAM, then it will become a free for all in the UK, not good both ecologically and politically. I wish GC.com to start looking at Global issues and not their own little corner of the planet. Or are we really becoming the 51st State&#33;

Id suggest starting a new thread along those lines then otherwise this is a thread drift and a half &#33;&#33; from the original post. [/b][/quote]
That was the original thread, but it became dragged off course. Lets get back on topic

[moote01]

Originally posted by Teasel+May 24 2006, 12:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ May 24 2006, 12:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by moote01@May 22 2006, 11:36 AM
The cache in question which Lactodorum refers is not actually on the landowners property, it is underground and belongs to other parties, just in the same way that you do not own the coal under your house. The actual agreement is for passage across the land to the entrance

So, who owns the cave itself, and are they happy for the cache to remain?

As I understand it: the cache does not break the Groundspeak rules; the farmer is happy for cachers to cross his land; and even the local cave rescue team are happy. Whether or not it conforms to the GAGB guidelines rather depends on whether the cache risks damage or disturbance to the SSSI. From what I read, far from causing damage, the introduction of geocaching into this cave system has actually improved its condition.

There&#39;s really nothing to be gained by continuing to stamp your foot, saying that in your opinion, caves are "sacred" places where no cache should ever be placed, on principle. Perhaps it might be more fruitful if you spoke to Audra Hurst (the English Nature employee responsible for this SSSI) and found out who owns / is legally responsible for the cave itself? Certainly the only PDO for the Castleton SSSI which is remotely relevant prohibits "Storage of materials in pits, mines, caves", but I somehow doubt storage of a tupperware box is quite what they had in mind by "materials"&#33; :P

<!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 22 2006, 11:36 AM
But if all the Guidelines are, are Guidelines, then rip them up and start again as you really need to negotiate with GC.com to set a standard that reflects the UK and UK conservation.

I&#39;m sure many would support Groundspeak allowing regional approvers to set their own rules for geocaching in their country. In the meantime, the GAGB guidelines fill that gap. [/b][/quote]
The cave I believe is owned and managed by one of the local show caves, not sure which one, but it is to do with the mineral rights of the area.

Are you sure the DCRO are happy with this? Can you provided documented evidence of this. This is certainly one of the most dangerous places underground in the UK and passage beyond the 1st chamber could actually mean anyone having and accident is none recoverable.

I help over see the Ease Gill SSSI, which is under the Adopt a Cave scheme, this would almost certainly be classed as polution on one of our clean ups and be removed, this is not unusual in caving as usually the only things left underground are, medical, comunication and safety equipment. Not a geocache this fits into none of these brackets, and as such in the caving world is litter.

You say that cachers improved the situation, the day one dies tell me that&#33;

[Teasel]

Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
The cave I believe is owned and managed by one of the local show caves, not sure which one, but it is to do with the mineral rights of the area.

So, if the show cave believes that allowing geocachers to log an ammo box is no worse than allowing tourists to litter, or allowing cavers from the local university club to go on a "stomp", then that&#39;s up to them, surely?

Are you sure the DCRO are happy with this? Can you provided documented evidence of this.

No - I just extrapolated from your comment: "the cache owner thinks the DCRO will provide this; but they have no jurisdiction over the site".

This is certainly one of the most dangerous places underground in the UK

My guidebook describes it as "Grade V - one of the greatest Derbyshire trips, but be careful". But, as you know, the danger only really begins after the unstable bolder choke in the Main Chamber; the place where the cache is hidden is relatively safe (or, at least, no more dangerous than other 5/5 caches which may require climbing ropes, SCUBA gear etc). On many coastal paths in the country you&#39;ll be less than 10 paces from certain death -- would you quibble over using them because they&#39;re near somewhere really dangerous???

and passage beyond the 1st chamber could actually mean anyone having and accident is none recoverable. [snip] You say that cachers improved the situation, the day one dies tell me that&#33;

Oh, I&#39;m sure they&#39;d get the body out eventually. Even if they didn&#39;t, a geocacher is likely to be wearing more biodegradable clothing than a more experienced caver. I remain to be convinced that one decomposing geocacher would cause significantly more long-term damage to a cave than your average dead sheep. Compare that to the permanent damage from all the soot and piles of discarded carbide added to caves by supposedly responsible potholers&#33; :P

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 11:54 AM

Pots and Kettles, nah, so some rubbish was found within a cave entrance.

....from the photo on the log page it looks further in than that, but then what do I know, it must be nearly 40 yrs since I last went down that particular cave.......well, I was a lot slimmer then.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Teasel+May 24 2006, 03:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel &#064; May 24 2006, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
The cave I believe is owned and managed by one of the local show caves, not sure which one, but it is to do with the mineral rights of the area.

So, if the show cave believes that allowing geocachers to log an ammo box is no worse than allowing tourists to litter, or allowing cavers from the local university club to go on a "stomp", then that&#39;s up to them, surely?

Are you sure the DCRO are happy with this? Can you provided documented evidence of this.

No - I just extrapolated from your comment: "the cache owner thinks the DCRO will provide this; but they have no jurisdiction over the site".

This is certainly one of the most dangerous places underground in the UK

My guidebook describes it as "Grade V - one of the greatest Derbyshire trips, but be careful". But, as you know, the danger only really begins after the unstable bolder choke in the Main Chamber; the place where the cache is hidden is relatively safe (or, at least, no more dangerous than other 5/5 caches which may require climbing ropes, SCUBA gear etc). On many coastal paths in the country you&#39;ll be less than 10 paces from certain death -- would you quibble over using them because they&#39;re near somewhere really dangerous???

and passage beyond the 1st chamber could actually mean anyone having and accident is none recoverable. [snip] You say that cachers improved the situation, the day one dies tell me that&#33;

Oh, I&#39;m sure they&#39;d get the body out eventually. Even if they didn&#39;t, a geocacher is likely to be wearing more biodegradable clothing than a more experienced caver. I remain to be convinced that one decomposing geocacher would cause significantly more long-term damage to a cave than your average dead sheep. Compare that to the permanent damage from all the soot and piles of discarded carbide added to caves by supposedly responsible potholers&#33; :P [/b][/quote]
Caving is not a fun hobby, it is a serious sport, as the boulder choke is within the second chamber it is a hazard that is there, they move in all directions including forward. Yes it is Grade V (the most serious), and having been in on one occasion I would say it is certainly worthy of this. My question now is Why should inexperienced cachers take risks that might affect other people lives, they are probably more likely to have a serious accident than someone who respects the danger of the environment.

This is a fool hardy cache and the person who set it has not adequately warned people of the dangers, there are no cave rescue call out procedures.

But to get back on track here, caves are protected within the Castleton SSSI, so the leaving of a cache is violating that. You all jump up in arms if a man mad structure is used as a hiding place (Dry stone walls) why can&#39;t a natural feature be treated with the same high respect.

Do we wish to see both Londowners and Statutory bodies restrict us from caching because we leave a cache in a recognised location. I can tell you the answer is no.

As for the recovery of a body, if you have ever been involved in cave rescue you would know that sometimes things are not easy. Caching is greatly at fault here and all you wish to do is mock&#33; Well mock away, you will win no argument with such a stance

[Teasel]

Just in case there&#39;s anyone reading who&#39;s getting worried about geocaches in SAMs / SSSIs, Moote&#39;s implication that geocaching is necessarily a violation of the SSSI is incorrect. (At least in legal terms - there are those whose personal opinion is that any cache placed within line of sight of an ancient monument, even if hidden from view, is a "violation", but that&#39;s a different story&#33.

SSSI status can be granted for any number of reasons. For each individual site, a list of PDOs (Potentially Damaging Operations) is laid down. These are activities for which the landowner must first apply to English Nature before carrying out. It is therefore expecially important to contact the landowner when planning a cache in an SSSI, as they will know what is and is not permitted. But there are many, quite legitimate, caches on SSSIs and SAMs, with the full agreement and cooperation of the landowner.

Anyway, back to the troll feeding...

Originally posted by moote01+May 24 2006, 01:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; May 24 2006, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My question now is Why should inexperienced cachers take risks that might affect other people lives, they are probably more likely to have a serious accident than someone who respects the danger of the environment.[/b]

Careful here - anything you say would apply to climbing caches, SCUBA caches, mountain caches, even coastal path caches, just as much as subterranian caches&#33;

Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
This is a fool hardy cache and the person who set it has not adequately warned people of the dangers, there are no cave rescue call out procedures.

Nor any mountain rescue callout procedures for Don&#39;t Look Down. And I can say with reasonable confidence that BMRT have been called to The Roaches more recently than DCRO to Winnats Head&#33; Sometimes it&#39;s a case of "if the obvious precautions aren&#39;t obvious to you, you obviously shouldn&#39;t think about attempting it".

Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
You all jump up in arms if a man mad structure is used as a hiding place (Dry stone walls) why can&#39;t a natural feature be treated with the same high respect.

Personally, I tend to assume that there is not a landowner in the country who would agree to a geocache being placed inside one of his walls. Therefore any cache in such a wall I automatically assume to be a danger to geocaching. However, there are many landowners who, quite legally and rationally, consent to the placement of a geocache in an SSSI which they manage.

Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
Do we wish to see both Londowners and Statutory bodies restrict us from caching because we leave a cache in a recognised location. I can tell you the answer is no.

Leaving a cache in a recognised location is not a problem. Doing so without the permission of the land manager certainly would be&#33; Remember that 7% of England and 12% of Scotland is within an SSSI (not to mention SAMs), and in a large number of cases, landowners and geocachers can work together to ensure that geocaching activities present no risk of damaging the SSSI.

Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
As for the recovery of a body, if you have ever been involved in cave rescue you would know that sometimes things are not easy.

Well, I trained in the basics of self rescue in my student days with CUCC, pushing caves in the Loser Plateau. More recently, BMRT borrowed some proper kit from DCRO to evaluate and I had a play. And I do have first hand experience of the difficulties of recovering multiple bits of a mangled body from a rockfall. But, no, I&#39;ve never put it all together and been involved in a really nasty rescue underground. Cave rescuers are a breed apart and I have nothing but respect for them&#33;

<!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 24 2006, 01:07 PM
Caching is greatly at fault here and all you wish to do is mock&#33; Well mock away, you will win no argument with such a stance[/quote]
If I mock, it&#39;s because you always seem to get such a bee in your bonnet about the potential for death in every situation you see. I&#39;m only glad you no longer insist on capitalising the word. I&#39;m really not sure what your main argument is, nor what you hope to achieve by tabling it. Is it the SSSI, the danger to cachers, the potential danger to rescuers, or maybe just the intrusion of muggles into "your" underground domain which is annoying you? It&#39;s all got a bit muddled&#33;

[moote01]

The Cave Conservation Code

Clumsiness can wreck cave formations.

Observe taped routes - they are there to safeguard the cave.

Never leave litter or spent carbide in a cave - pollution kills cave life.

Set others a good example when caving - persuade them to follow it.

Enlist the help of experts to record anything new you may find.

Responsible leaders will avoid taking novices where they may accidentally cause damage.

Vandalism means damage to stals, mud floors, rimstone pools etc., - help prevent it.

Alert your Regional Caving Council to developments which may possibly damage or destroy caves.

Take care not to disturb cave life, especially bats, or remains which may be of archaeological or historical mining interest.

Initiate measures to help look after caves and mines - collect litter, clean off graffiti, etc.

Offer your support to others who initiate conservation measures.

Natural caves and old mines are part of our natural heritage - help protect them

[moote01]

Protect Our Caves

Caves are a unique and very special part of our natural environment. Because of their slow and gradual formation over many thousands of years, fantastic passage shapes develop, breakdown occurs, sediments are deposited, beautiful calcite formations build up, and various creatures find a home. To be the first to enter such a place is an experience unlikely to be forgotten but unfortunately one that only a few people will be privileged to have.

Once a cave has been entered a process of deterioration begins. Sometimes this is extremely rapid but usually it is steady and barely noticeable. Whatever happens, the end result is the same, a place retaining little aesthetic value and interest. Such destruction is a crime against nature and there is a moral responsibility on the part of everyone using this environment for their enjoyment, whatever their motivation and purpose to ensure its preservation for others.

Internal Threats
Why do people go caving? Initially perhaps for the simple experience of entering an unknown and hostile environment. Why they continue is not so simple to appreciate. Some continue for the sport alone, others to pursue a specific scientific interest, but for most it is a combination of many things. The majority of cavers have a purely sporting interest, but a large part of the enjoyment obtained on a trip underground is as a direct result of the type of passage being traversed and the features that can be seen en route. The maintenance of these features in as near natural state as possible is what conservation is about. Their deterioration can only detract from the pleasure of going underground.

Aesthetics and Science
The viewing of formations is one of the most rewarding experiences in a cave. Over many thousands of years the gradual build up of calcite develops beautiful shapes that often defy description. Many of these features are of great importance to cave scientists, who are able to deduce the evolutionary history of cave systems by analysing the formations which occur within them. Damaging or removing such features is like tearing out a page from a historic document. Yet these fragile formations are very susceptible to damage, and their beauty can be permanently spoilt by the touch of a dirty hand. Unfortunately, formations are often in close proximity to passers-by and damage, both intentional and accidental, does occur. As a solution, formations are often taped off and these tapes must never be crossed. Where tapes are not in place special care is required and it should always be remembered that a moments thoughtlessness may deprive someone else of the pleasure of seeing what once was there.

Tapes are installed to protect not only formations but also other features. Often, cave mud and floor deposits are of even greater value to cave scientists than are the more visually spectacular calcite formations. Their preservation is therefore equally vital. The trend in new discoveries is to tape a narrow pathway and restrict movement within this. This ensures the preservation of mud banks and other floor deposits, and ensures minimum disturbance of cave life. Visitors are allowed to see the cave in as near a natural state as possible and can then appreciate the damage done in other, unprotected systems by the passage of many thousands of trampling feet.

Litter and Pollution
In all intensively used caves litter is a major problem. Regular clean-ups of some sites involve the removal of huge amounts of rubbish ranging from chocolate wrappers and ripped clothes, to dead batteries and spent carbide. It takes no real effort on the part of an individual to take out of the cave what he takes in, and little extra effort to take out someone else&#39;s rubbish. Litter of any form is unsightly, and in extreme cases can make going underground unpleasant. In addition, spent carbide and items that decompose, can cause pollution and harm cave life. This is a special problem since dumped carbide is difficult to remove, and its use is being banned in an increasing number of caves.

Fauna and Flora
The unique environment of caves provides a habitat for many specialised life forms which are very susceptible to human disturbance. To the untrained observer bats are the most obvious life form found underground. All species of bat ore endangered and protected by law, and great care should always be taken not to disturb them, especially during the hibernating season from October to March, as this may result in their death. If you see a bat, pass by quickly and quietly. More abundant than bats, but less noticeable, are the numerous other creatures that live throughout the cave on the floor and in pools of water. These tiny animals are adapted to living in this hostile environment and are part of a delicately balanced ecosystem. The less disturbance that man causes, the more chance they have of survival.

Archaeology and Palaeontology
Because their climatic conditions are constant, caves are excellent sites for the preservation of archaeological and palaeontological remains. The excavation of these, and their study, has revealed much about early man. Fortunately most of the material is buried in sediments in entrances and is unlikely to be disturbed except by digging. There are, however, a few sites where, for instance, bone stacks are found unburied. Anyone discovering remains, however seemingly insignificant, should not disturb them, and should seek expert advice immediately. A number of the more important sites where finds have been made have been scheduled as Ancient Monuments by the Department of the Environment.

Photography
Photography has an important role to play in conservation. It can increase awareness of the beauty of caves, and demonstrate the destruction from which they suffer. Unfortunately it can also pose a threat, and even reputable photographers have taken, and have had published, pictures demonstrating poor conservation practice. Additionally, photographers and their models have caused damage in their eagerness to obtain a better picture. The taking of photos is rewarding, but special care is essential owing to the close proximity to formations that is invariably involved. Always bear this in mind. Never cross tapes, watch yourself and your model at all times, and take pictures of damaged formations as well as others to demonstrate the need for conservation.

Digging and Exploration
It is commonly thought that these activities are the realms of experienced cavers alone. This is not the case since most people have a desire to see what lies around the corner. This need not be discouraged but requires appropriate care. If exploration of a side passage may cause damage, first consult someone with a knowledge of the cave to find out if it has already been investigated. If starting a new dig, keep it tidy and avoid carrying mud on your clothing through the rest of the cave. If it seems necessary to break formations to continue, remember that they cannot be replaced; see if you can find an alternative route. Finally, if you find something, explore carefully and tape as necessary immediately. If in doubt seek the help of others with appropriate experience.

Artificial Aids
In the past it was common practice to place artificial aids in caves, but over the years these have been progressively removed. New ones should be installed only if absolutely essential. In recent years with the increased usage of Single Rope Techniques we are presented with another problem, the proliferation of bolts and anchors appearing at the heads of pitches. These can be very unsightly and even dangerous, as excessive numbers can weaken the rock. Wherever possible, natural belays should be used; additional bolts should never be installed where existing ones are adequate.

Visitor Pressure
It is widely accepted that the deterioration of a cave is directly related to the number and type of visitors it receives. Usage is continually rising and a large proportion of these visitors originate from the military, outdoor centres, schools etc. Unless these groups are made more aware of the impact of their activities this trend is likely to continue, with the even more rapid deterioration of our caves. It is therefore vital that adequate supervision is provided for such parties and that they use sites of the lowest conservation interest.

Access Restrictions
Most caves have specific access requirements, ranging from asking the landowner through to the need to obtain a leader. The reasons for these restrictions vary; the landowner may require them, quite apart from any need to control access for conservation purposes, or they may be for conservation reasons alone. There is always considerable debate regarding this subject, but it can be guaranteed that invariably where there is some form of access control there is good reason for it. Failure to comply with these requirements can lead to a loss of access for everyone or to the destruction of some valuable feature. Details of access requirements can be found in the local guidebooks and the handbooks of the Regional Caving Councils.

Adopt-a-Cave Scheme
A national Adopt-A-Cave scheme whereby clubs volunteer their services to look after specific caves has been initiated. The responsibilities include keeping the cave clean, as well as monitoring and reporting on damage. The scheme is very informal. Lists of caves covered by it are regularly published in the magazine Descent, and clubs are invited to join by informing the Editor and/or the NCA of the sites they wish to look after.

External Threats

There are a number of activities carried out on the surface by non-cavers that can threaten a cave, the most serious being quarrying, which can often completely destroy a cave system. Gripping of open moorland and afforestation can also have dramatic effects, such as increased flood flows, erosion of sediments and the deposition of silt and vegetable matter. Land reclamation for agricultural and other purposes can lead to the blocking of entrances, as can indiscriminate tipping. The tipping of anything but inert material can result in pollution which can harm or destroy cave life and prove a danger to cavers. Silage effluent from farms can have similar effects. Anyone learning of any of these problems should immediately bring them to the attention of the NCA or a Regional Caving Council, especially if the cave is an SSSI or NNR.

Statutory Protection
Many caves are given some form of statutory protection, either by being notified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or as a National Nature Reserve (NNR). SSSI&#39;s are so designated by the Nature Conservancy Council, which has a responsibility under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to safeguard them from specified damaging activities. There are 48 cave SSSI&#39;s in Britain, many of which are areas covering a number of individual sites. Information on specific caves included can be obtained from the NCA. Further details on the cave conservation activities of the NCC can be obtained from its Geology and Physiography Section at Northminster House, Peterborough, Hants, PE1 1UA.

[nobbynobbs]

so. lots of replies

but what is it that you actually want other than an argument? to start a discussion ok.

but what would you like the outcome to be? a total ban on cave caches? or ones in sssi etc?
a total ban on caches where people might hurt themselves? i assume that we will then also become a non smoking, drug free, non sweet or saturated fat eating society?

people do stupid things that will endanger themselves. i&#39;ve seen my share of dead bodies.

how do you propose to enforce these strict laws on other cachers? or cachers who don&#39;t use gc.com or gagb? laws not guidelines as they aren&#39;t strict enough by the sound of it.

or is this all just a little rant?

the world is not a perfect place. people will break rules and guidelines and go caving when they have no experience or equipement. they will go swimming in the sea after drinking too much, climb cliffs when they have no knowledge. darwinism in motion or have you never seen the darwin awards?

well that should give you enough rope to hang me.....

[Paul G0TLG]

Originally posted by moote01@May 24 2006, 10:06 PM
Protect Our Caves

Caves are a unique...(blah blah huge snip)

Gosh, clever Moote...did you write all that yourself? Even the long words?

Or did you copy and paste it from here?

Either way, I&#39;m not sure of the point of such a hugely long post, other than perhaps to prove that Moote knows far mor about speleology than the rest of us. It certainly doesn&#39;t progress any discussion on GAGB guidelines.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Paul G0TLG+May 25 2006, 07:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Paul G0TLG @ May 25 2006, 07:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 24 2006, 10:06 PM
Protect Our Caves

Caves are a unique...(blah blah huge snip)

Gosh, clever Moote...did you write all that yourself? Even the long words?

Or did you copy and paste it from here?

Either way, I&#39;m not sure of the point of such a hugely long post, other than perhaps to prove that Moote knows far mor about speleology than the rest of us. It certainly doesn&#39;t progress any discussion on GAGB guidelines. [/b][/quote]
Look if you can&#39;t debate important issues don&#39;t bother being involved, Caves are more important than Dry Stone walls and you all think thaey are objects of fun&#33;

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by moote01+May 25 2006, 10:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 @ May 25 2006, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@May 25 2006, 07:52 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-moote01

@May 24 2006, 10:06 PM
Protect Our Caves

Caves are a unique...(blah blah huge snip)

Gosh, clever Moote...did you write all that yourself? Even the long words?

Or did you copy and paste it from here?

Either way, I&#39;m not sure of the point of such a hugely long post, other than perhaps to prove that Moote knows far mor about speleology than the rest of us. It certainly doesn&#39;t progress any discussion on GAGB guidelines.

Look if you can&#39;t debate important issues don&#39;t bother being involved, Caves are more important than Dry Stone walls and you all think thaey are objects of fun&#33; [/b][/quote]
Hmmmmmm.......I don&#39;t think it is caves that have become the objects of fun

[markandlynn]

Caves = more important than dry stone walls
So natural features are more important than man made features then ?
I always wondered why cavemen left the caves to make huts it was to protect the caves i suppose
Thanks for the link http://www.caveinfo.org.uk/nca/protect.htm interesting reading even if it was twice over : if i ever go caving again ill be sure to follow them.

[t.a.folk]

the world is not a perfect place. people will break rules and guidelines and go caving when they have no experience or equipement. they will go swimming in the sea after drinking too much, climb cliffs when they have no knowledge

We could try several of those things but could doesn&#39;t mean we should &#33;&#33;

Anyway the sea is too cold at present .

[Paul G0TLG]

Originally posted by dodgydaved@May 25 2006, 10:56 AM
Hmmmmmm.......I don&#39;t think it is caves that have become the objects of fun

D**n...I wish I&#39;d said that&#33;

[moote01]

It is about time some of you realised, that the natural world is being destroyed by mans worst efforts. If you are not interested in the planet, or conservation, then go and drive around tearing up this great country in pursuit of a silly bit of Tupperware.

But the planet is more important than that in my eyes, but if you feel Tupperware is, well that is just your immature and underdeveloped minds&#33;

[Muggle]

Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 12:57 PM
It is about time some of you realised, that the natural world is being destroyed by mans worst efforts. If you are not interested in the planet, or conservation, then go and drive around tearing up this great country in pursuit of a silly bit of Tupperware.

But the planet is more important than that in my eyes, but if you feel Tupperware is, well that is just your immature and underdeveloped minds&#33;

Maybe we should seal up the entrances to all the caves and leave them as nature intended instead of defiling them by bashing nails into the walls to support ropes and ladders.

Not to mention those that use dynamite underground to open passages up.

SAVE OUR CAVES.

[nobbynobbs]

so for the third time in asking moote&#33;

what is it that you actually want????

you can&#39;t have a debate or discussion without actually stating what you think the correct solution is.

is it a total ban on caves. sssi&#39;s. dry stone walls. give the moderators the right to immediately shut down someones account irretreivably if they transgress.

state your position please.

[nobbynobbs]

so for the third time in asking moote&#33;

what is it that you actually want????

you can&#39;t have a debate or discussion without actually stating what you think the correct solution is.

is it a total ban on caves. sssi&#39;s. dry stone walls. give the moderators the right to immediately shut down someones account irretreivably if they transgress.

state your position please.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Muggle+May 25 2006, 02:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Muggle @ May 25 2006, 02:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 25 2006, 12:57 PM
It is about time some of you realised, that the natural world is being destroyed by mans worst efforts. If you are not interested in the planet, or conservation, then go and drive around tearing up this great country in pursuit of a silly bit of Tupperware.

But the planet is more important than that in my eyes, but if you feel Tupperware is, well that is just your immature and underdeveloped minds&#33;

Maybe we should seal up the entrances to all the caves and leave them as nature intended instead of defiling them by bashing nails into the walls to support ropes and ladders.

Not to mention those that use dynamite underground to open passages up.

SAVE OUR CAVES. [/b][/quote]
You obviously know little of the high standard of work that we Speleologist put into making maintaining caves. In some parts of the UK caves are already gated due to none cavers destroying the environment, should we let this cave in an SSSI go the same way? NO&#33;

As for bashing nails in well that is historic, and no longer happens, all placements of P hangers are planned and placed to last many years. Don&#39;t put your argument in the caving communities lap, this is a geocaching issue&#33;

[moote01]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs@May 25 2006, 03:18 PM
so for the third time in asking moote&#33;

what is it that you actually want????

you can&#39;t have a debate or discussion without actually stating what you think the correct solution is.

is it a total ban on caves. sssi&#39;s. dry stone walls. give the moderators the right to immediately shut down someones account irretreivably if they transgress.

state your position please.

The obvious is that caching in sensitive areas should be looked at with great care by the UK moderators on GC.com

We are the UK not the USA and to live by their rules does not reflect this counties heritage.

The US has it&#39;s protected areas where caches are not allowed, why can&#39;t the UK have it equivalents?

[el10t]

Moote - you are doing a really good job of winding everybody up. Your main point of contention appears to vary from post to post.

Here&#39;s an idea:
Geocachers: don&#39;t damage caves when you go geocaching.
Cavers: don&#39;t damage caves when you go caving.

That seems quite simple to me.

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
Don&#39;t put your argument in the caving communities lap, this is a geocaching issue&#33;

Ah&#33; Sorry, I thought it WAS a caving issue rather than a caching issue, mind you that was only the feeling I got having heard that reviewers and Groundspeak were both happy with the issue.

[moote01]

Originally posted by dodgydaved+May 25 2006, 06:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dodgydaved @ May 25 2006, 06:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@May 25 2006, 04:49 PM
Don&#39;t put your argument in the caving communities lap, this is a geocaching issue&#33;

Ah&#33; Sorry, I thought it WAS a caving issue rather than a caching issue, mind you that was only the feeling I got having heard that reviewers and Groundspeak were both happy with the issue. [/b][/quote]
They ignored the issue, they blatantly refused to look into this issue, they allowed the cache to be placed and stay active even though they were told that the location was unsuitable, they took an agreement made for the caving community and used it to their own ends.

To put it in context the people at GC.com hijacked another bodies agreement, without thought to the skills knowledge and experience of the caving community. That is just not on, as that agreement has clauses such as 3rd party insurance.

They care little about the environmental impact, and the risk volunteers woulds take if a rescue was required.