BOF road shows

[SYO Member]

Returning to the new FC agreement, it's worth clubs checking that areas you think are owned by the FC still are because in the last year they've sold off alot of land.

This site appears to be used for all FC land sales as well as other landowners:

http://www.johnclegg.co.uk/properties-for-sale/

There are a couple of areas I've orienteered on just on this first page and you can check what's currently on offer in regions of the country by clicking on the map on the LHS.

I came across this by chance at the end of last year when I found that 2 of our areas were being sold and there's one there now that we've had our eye on for a number of years.

Note from the PDFs giving the full details of each area that some are definitely owned by the FC but others are just managed by them.

[graeme]

(what Eddie said)
Solving the grade 2 controller problem is easy: abolish them. Either you're a novice controller (grade 3) or an experienced one (grade 1).

[DeerTick]

On Sunday I am organising for my pains

Can I suggest Ibruprofen, Eddie.

AP

[Scott]

In case anybody on here hasn't seen it already, a circular has gone round to clubs from BOF about the new FC agreement, detailing the current state of play. A bit long to post on here, but your club secretary should have been emailed a copy.

[Red Adder]

My first reaction is that this could just about kill off orienteering in East Anglia as most of the larger areas are FC but probably not worth paying the £ 3 hike in entry fee for. The FC it not really showing any commercial nouse in this - anyone running a business knows that you can only sell something for what someone is actually prepared to pay for it ? MHs letter does imply that FC didn't exactly negotiate. All very sad as other parts of government are trying to promote healthier lifstyles - eg about 1/4 Suffolk schools have invested in having their grounds mapped, Sports England has paid out several grants to help promote the sports in various ways in the East. On the other side, having seen the previous charges for horse permits and especially rallying we did have a very reasonable deal previously.

[Mrs H]

So I undertook the 3 hour round trip to go to our "local" road show last night (I don't understand why Coventry is classed as The West Midlands when it's as far East as Derby ) and quite enjoyed the experience.

It seems that mike would quite like us to boycott FC land for a bit so that they feel the pinch as far as quotas are concerned and reconsider the "agreement".

I was extremely put out at the end when John Woodall told us off for giving Mike a hard time over it - what hard time? We were disappointed and dismayed and some people were shocked as they hadn't heard about it (it's incredible that some people in positions of authority in the sport don't know what's going on - obviously don't read nopesport - I'm put in mind of that scene from Men in Black at the newstand - remember?) but I don't recall anyone having a go a him. Mike himself said it had been the most challenging road show to date - the rest of you must be very docile.

What with the emphasis on local orienteering, the university initiative (such as it is) and then the introduction of a competition for pre-selected members from each region (maybe not Intraland but more Inter-regional for everyone) I was beginning to wonder if the house was bugged

[AndyC]

Mike also said that it was the most enjoyable roadshow because of that interaction from the audience.
Mrs H didn't mention the stick he took over Focus magazine , how cash strapped BOF will be with the loss and curtailment of grants and the (very vague) proposals for development of event officials

[gaw]

this thread seems to be on a number of different issues - can the forestry commission ones be moved to a new thread?

Should BOF not be arguing with FC that we contribute to their recreational aims, and being clear that this is at no/little cost to them:
* We bring people to their Forests and engage them in healthy activity
* our orienteers come into contact with their visitor centres and carparks and revisit as families when they pay for services they use - parking, cafes, educational resources, Go Ape, etc
* we provide expertise which they use for POCs and o-maps
* in most cases we are probably beneficial to the biodiversity of their forests by breaking up the ground in the same way as the grazing heavy cattle they use in some areas to do just that (e.g. Ennerdale)

It would be reasonable to pay for minimal admin involved in necessary permits, and for parking (if other visitors are paying, or if extra parking facility is provided), but we should also be clear that
* we make few or no demands on the paths and cycle trails they put in
* we wouldn't expect to pay to run through the forest requiring no facilities when they provide 2700km of cycle trails for bikers who enjoy free access, or indeed all the other people who enjoy walking through their forests, birdwatching, etc for free. And orienteers are I think insured through BOF which the beneral biker or walker wouldn't be.

We should also point out that charging will discourage those on lesser income, who are the sector of society most likely not to access the health benefits of the outdoors. FC have their own research linking health benefits with visits to the forest, and this may include this point, but research from the John Muir Trust, carried out by Glasgow University Public Health Dept tells us that those from the poorest 15% of backgrounds are 6 times less likely to have accessed wild places (meaning the natural environment in its many guises but definitly FC land).

[Red Adder]

I agree with gaw - the trouble is that you can't negotiate with an organisation that does not want to do so. MH may get his boycott from clubs who are unwilling to gift surpluses built up over many seasons to FC but I suspect that they will probably not be phased by such actions. Several FC managers (but by no means all) I have encountered over the years see us as a bit of a nuisance and not a gret revenue source (or aboost for out-door activity figures).

With the current severe economic belt tightening though I expect very little sympathy for a tiny, generally middle class, minority complaining about what many would see as a modest increase for a fun run when tens if not hundreds of thousands face loosing their jobs over the coming months.

Since cyclists/walkers pay nothing I'd be tempted to offer zero/low cost club training runs on maps - no controls or anything so you could still get runs to test your navigation skills through the forest but FC, as from the other users, would get nothing. Better than giving FC £ 450 when for perhaps £20 50 people could have a bit of fairly meaningful exercise.

[IanD]

Just to ask the obvious question - what's to stop us holding events in a public forest without telling the landowner? Just stick out some kites and pin-punches (wouldn't want to risk valuable electronic units), and hold the event as per normal.

In a forest open for people to walk, run or cycle freely without having to ask permission, they'd surely not get anywhere taking us to court?

Now normally, one would value a good relationship with the landowner, and wouldn't want to do this sort of thing for fear of damaging it. However, where the relationship with the landowner has already broken down...?

[RJ]

I agree with gaw. We should just continue to express our concern over their charges and their misunderstanding of what we contribute to their aims and to their POCs. Certainly in Cumbria we have produced a high quality, up to date map (2010), for which we receive only a portion of its true cost of production when selling it to the FC for resale. Whinlatter has thousands and thousands going around the POC, using our map. During the summer the place is stuffed out with school parties every day of the week.

I am sure the FC are very reasonable people and will understand our position when it is sufficiently explained to them..... perhaps that has to be on a local level, talking face to face and explaining our side of the equation. In reality the FC do absolutely nothing to the forest in order for us to use it and hold our events. I wish they would tidy up the brashings before our events, but they don't!!

Their aim of making the resource of the forest available for members of the public to exercise and improve fitness is entirely measurable on our activity, with event participation numbers published.

I feel they, the FC, are under pressure to generate funds, and we are seen as a 'known' and measurable resource and are therefore to be taxed. It may take some time for them to reverse the policy but I am sure they will. Write to your MP; speak to the local FC Officer!!

[AndyO]

I wouldn't advocate falling out with any landowner if we want to be seen as a responsible sport, but the increases in charges if correctly quoted are quite shocking when the same number of individuals can simply turn up at the location and run, walk or cycle entirely free of charge. It would be interesting to discover the total income FC receives from Orienteering in a year. I suspect that it would be a much more significant proportion of our expenditure than it would represent of their annual budget.

It has been mentioned before in this thread, but BOF really should start agitating for a full Access Code on the Scottish model. I'm sure other organisations (Ramblers Association?) would support it. and don't bother with FC - get to the top (PM/Parliament).

[Mrs H]

I ams slightly amazed that you all think that we didn't raise any of these points last night. MH has already spoken to MPs who say it's out of their hands, the Fc are not interested in talking let alone negotiating that's why he's advocating local arrangements - particularly where POCs and mapping arrangements are in place.

[DaveK]

[quote="IanD"]Just to ask the obvious question - what's to stop us holding events in a public forest without telling the landowner? Just stick out some kites and pin-punches (wouldn't want to risk valuable electronic units), and hold the event as per normal.

Generally I agree with the tone of this, but there would undoubtedly be some insurance issues!

[AndyO]

Mrs H, If this was raised at the roadshows (and I don't doubt it), that shows that there is evidence of real concern among the membership (as also seen by posts on this forum), but to speak to MP's and simply accept their "Pontious Pilate" act as the end of the matter won't get any change to happen. I used the word "agitate" in my post because that's what it will take. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code came about because there was a broad political will for it to happen, and that was based on lobbying from many different groups. In other words it needs a campaign to be started. If there is enough support from the public and organisations like BOF then there is every reason to expect that a code can be achieved. We are facing some real challenges with spending cuts across the board and a measure such as this does not involve a huge public subsidy so it should be an easy "give" for government. The PM could even claim it as evidence that they were doing their bit for the Big Society he likes to preach about.

The Code is all about [i]responsible[i] access though, and that puts responsibilities on those who do access the countryside to "follow the Country Code" in simple terms.