New Forestry Commission Agreement

[Red Adder]

With FC playing hardball and unilaterally changing the rules with us how about doing the same back.

There are bound to be several PCs on FC land. Perhaps we could do things unilaterally impose a £ 3 copyright fee on each map or withdraw copyrights forthwith ? Or charge them a full commercial rate for map production - say £ 2000 for A4 area. I know that in lot of cases they have had maps or copyright to them for nothing.

This may seem negative but initial thoughts are that FC have possibly finished medium to long O for us and may even destroy my club so we have very little to loose.

[mikey]

It is definitely time to charge commercial rates for permanent course maps and advice on setting up courses on FE land.

[AndyC]

If the FC are demanding payment in advance we are going to need to take out insurance to cover events being lost "due to circumstances beyond or control" -that is something BOF can help arrange

[greywolf]

The main problem with private landowners is in finding out who they are: most are just middle class people who typically love the outdoors. They can still block access, but the key is that it involves work for them to find a reason: the easy life option for a landowner is just to say "yes".

Hmm. can I recommend this for a slightly different view of Scottish landlords...

[ryeland of doom]

Hmm. can I recommend this for a slightly different view of Scottish landlords...

That's why we have laws moderating their behaviour.

[roadrunner]

If the FC are demanding payment in advance we are going to need to take out insurance to cover events being lost "due to circumstances beyond or control" -that is something BOF can help arrange

I seem to remember this being suggested when we had Foot and Mouth, and the answer being that it was too expensive. Worth trying, though.

[Clive Coles]

The SUFFOC decision: West Harling 7th November.

For this event only, to take account of fact that the FC increase has been imposed after folk had made plans to attend the event.

Children £3.50 that covers their FC fee £3 and the map £0.50

All adults ( BO members and independant participants) a flat fee of £8.( i.e. no BOF member discount).

The adult attendees effectively contribute the running costs of staging the entire event. ( BOF levy, Regional SI kit hire charges. Event centre + loos, mapping and officials out of pocket expenses). We probably even so still stand to make a small loss.

The decision not to apply the BOF discount is a one off decision for this event. Discounts (or will they be non-member surcharges) will be reintroduced for SUFFOC level C events in 2011.



SUFFOC will be reconsidering where they hold their events in the future ~ currently 3 are planned in FC Forests in the next 18 months. We will be exploring alternative venues not under FC management.

[Big Jon]

Get in touch with MPs - it worked for OS copyright "agreement", no reason why a coordinated attack on FC through dozens of MPs won't make them change their monetrist views.

[Red Adder]

as said in WAOC CP to a group discussing their courses etc " If you stand there any longer that's another £3 FC fee each" i suppose at least he didn't threaten to clamp or tow us.

[SeanC]

Out of interest, does anyone know roughly what percent of Orienteering areas are FC owned?

One thought I had (not about the Suffolk event, but in general) was that it might help to raise car parking fees at FC events to cover all or part of the FC fees increase. That way it would allow Orienteers the chance to mitigate some of the cost (by sharing transport) and would also make organisation easier (less cars = smaller car parks can be used).

Personally I would rather pay the extra £3 at district/regional events if it were a better than average area than an alternative poorer quality area*, though with so many local events down my way I tend not to go to too many of these.

* I'm not saying I agree with the FC fees.

[Miner]

Maybe we won't have to worry about the charges soon. We'll just have to worry about where the forest has gone...

[IanD]

I think clubs should refuse to pay these fees. If this means boycotting Forestry Commission land, then so be it.

I realise that this will very painful, but I think the alternative may be the death of our sport. Here is my reasoning.

As a fairly well-heeled individual, I can afford to pay £3 access fee on top of all the other expenses. However, for a 'typical' family of four, we would be talking about £12.

Not the least iniquitous aspect of the FC charges is that they apply in full even if the FC only supply part of the land used. Many events cross land ownership boundaries. I guess a typical event would use the property of three landowners. If other landowners follow the FC example, and why wouldn't they follow the example of one of the largest and (theoretically) most public-spirited, my 'typical' family would be looking at paying £36 for their hour so's run. And this is just for access, it doesn't cover other event costs such as parking, mapping, toilets, let alone transport and equipment costs.

[EDIT: according to Spookster, the premise of the previous paragraph is not correct, and the "agreement" does provide for the charge to be reduced where the FC is only one of multiple landowners. This does rather reduce the force of my argument, but I still feel £12 for a family of four is excessive.]

I do not think orienteering will survive in England with such charges.

At least this 'agreement' should provide our publicity people with some ammunition. "Family charged £12 to run in public wood", with a nice picture of a photogenic traditional family, should make the front page of the local rag, never mind the sports pages.

I think all orienteers should write to their MPs. It would be worth emphasizing what the Forestry Commission do in return for these fees - nothing! They do not alter their forestry work in any way. They do not provide us with any extra facilities, or even any access. We only go where we would be allowed to walk or run anyway. Just because we want to hang up a kite for one day only, somehow they feel that it is appropriate to charge us. Point out too that orienteering clubs do not make a profit and events are put on by unpaid volunteers.

If, as I expect, the MP writes back saying there is nothing he or she can do, this would be the perfect opportunity to press for enactment in England of the same legislation which already prevents the Scots from being ripped off in this way. I'm not sure exactly what which clause of which Scots Assembly act is relevant, could one of the Scots post the details here please?

[Mrs H]

I heartily agree Ian - no one should underestimate the threat this represents to the future of the sport in England and Wales. I understand our marketing manager is back from maternity leave - do you think it would be a good use of her's and Mike's time to draft a letter we could all download or put as a loose sheet in Focus - amend as necessary and send off to our MP.

If necessary I'll do it myself but I am not in possession of all the facts

[geomorph]

Well written IanD. (I started/abandoned a similar theme yesterday but couldn't get it together as you have done, so thank you!)
Yes, MrsH, I think it needs to be co-ordinated through BOF.
Unfortunately for hard pressed club committees it also needs their full backing to get every member to sign up.

Out of interest, if the FC provides zilch extra above parking and perhaps toilets, how does the £3 compare with say use of an LA football pitch for 90minutes, in which the LA is supposed to provide a marked area, posts and cut grass.

As for the sell off, word has it that the Woodland Trust is looking at how it can raise funds to buy up appropriate FC lots. Is there any mileage in our investigating how we can work with them on this to secure the top quality areas in each region? What does anybody think about raising our own funds for this?

[Spookster]

Not the least iniquitous aspect of the FC charges is that they apply in full even if the FC only supply part of the land used. Many events cross land ownership boundaries.

Ian - what's the source of this information?

I'm looking at a copy of the agreement (called "FINAL") in which it says:

10. Where only part of an event course is on Commission land a pro-rata reduction of the scheduled charges shall be made. The actual reduction shall be negotiated and agreed for each event between the Commission and the event organiser.

As you suggest, many events have multiple landowners, so this is a key point.