Team MJDJ

I agree that I may have acted improperly by bringing this issue to the forums in the manner in which I did, but what you fail to realize is that UP TO THAT POINT, I had been dealing with the approver for almost a week, and despite my assurances, I was denied based on the actions of OTHER irresponsible cachers. The fact that others cachers (and another approver) saw nothing wrong with my submission suggests that this ISN'T a case of black and white! Again, you only saw the results of a week's worth of frustration... These questions WERE asked, and I provided answers. The approver assumed that since I don't hunt for caches every time I'm in the area, this implies that I am NOT in the area... Which is easy to say from where you are sitting...you were not the one who spent a week trying to convince someone who deosn't know you, that your intentions ARE honourable and yet you are treated as irresponsible because of the actions of OTHERS. I'll repeat that there is NOTHING in my history as a cacher that suggests I would NOT maintain this cache. It was done arbitrarily despite my assurances...why isn't my word good enough? If this judgement is righteous, why were my other TWO wilderness caches approved without question? True, but this denial was done on the basis of a supposed "distance-limit" that, in fact, doesn't exist. Nowhere in the guidelines is there mention of a "150 mile limit". If (as everyone has suggested) bringing LOCAL approvers into the picture isn't going to expedite the process...then I say that UNLESS the cacher in question has a HISTORY of abandoning long distance caches (and one cache isn't a "history" btw) then they should be subject to more scrutiny than someone who has shown a willingness and ability to maintain their caches. This sort of variance can be applied to other guidelines as well...remember, this IS a game, there is no need for absolutes.

This wouldn't "add layers"...perhaps I'm not explaining it properly! What I am suggesting is that INSTEAD of reviewers in Texas looking at caches in Ontario, that there be a group of volunteer reviewers IN ONTARIO who would be in charge of reviewing AND approving the caches in that Province. Likewise a group for BC, one for Georgia, one for Michigan, one for the Yukon, etc. These reviewers would be appointed by GC, just as they are now. Each State/Province could break it down into Municipalities, electoral regions or what have you...as the need requires. The guidelines would still apply (although that's topic for another thread) as per GC. Instead of having a dozen or so reviewers for ALL of North America, there would be hundreds...thereby expediting the approval/denial process. The fact that someone would suggest that Canadian cachers are impatient says to me that SOMETHING is needed to address REGIONAL needs, and what better way than with local approvers? This could eliminate the Nationality bias, the stereotyping, etc....

I remain, American Approvers were NOT mentioned. Why not...it is not uncommon to wait UP TO a week to have caches approved. I personally have waited up to five days for one of mine...not a big deal, really. Why do you consider Canadian cachers to be so impatient? If this is true, perhaps it has to do with our intolerance for un-necessary bureaucracy... Well then that would defeat the point of this proposal, wouldn't it? I suggested this as an enhancement to GC. Have CANADIAN (BC, Albertan, Manitoban whatever) reviewers APPROVE the caches and list them @GC...not to simply look at them and submit them for approval! Are you suggesting that we are visionaries? Thanks, that's not a slap at all!

I have suggested (at another forum) that perhaps each State, or Province could have its own group of reviewers who submit the caches to one "overseer" (for lack of a better word) who will then submit the APPROVED caches to GC. I don't know why mtn-man continues to take what is said out-of-context...nobody is making comments about Americans or American Approvers in this thread. Perhaps you could leave OTHER topics where they lay... I'll be the first to admit that Approvers have a tough job, but we are trying to find ways to make it EASIER for them...if, as someone suggested this hobby IS growing "at a phenomenal rate" then it only makes sense to DIVERSIFY. One way to diversify is to change the number of approvers or the guidelines for approval. I think the former is a better choice. (PS to whoever is responsible...Thank you for removing the "moderation"...it makes more sense to reply to threads in REAL-TIME)

...but the so-called wilderness caches aren't likely to come under scrutiny by "land managers" and therefore should be subject to different "guidelines". Actually, that is incorrect. They are indeed under scrutiny. In some areas they are under very strict guidelines and geocaches are banned in many wilderness areas. There is at least one National Park Service area that doesn't even allow virtual caches. Here are some prime examples for areas that I review. http://www.ggaonline.org/gadodont.html http://www.ggaonline.org/guidelinesFS.html http://www.mngca.org/hiding.php http://www.superiornationalforest.org/recreation/geocaching/ Thankyou for your input Mtn-man, but as Gorak pointed out I was referring to CANADIAN (specifically BC) wilderness....as this IS a Canadian thread...but I suppose if the shoe fits! Interesting to discover that to date, BC has no BANS on Geocaching...probably due to the population density...and yet another example as to why LOCAL Approvers should be reviewing LOCAL caches. Mtn-man's statement above further enforces this. Perhaps TPTB could examine this situation?

...but the so-called wilderness caches aren't likely to come under scrutiny by "land managers" and therefore should be subject to different "guidelines". If we take my recently-denied cache for example, the Approver suggested that since it was so far outside my "area", I would eventually and inevitably abandon it and it would then become "litter". By the time the cache is submitted for approval, it has already been hidden...all the effort has been put into it. By DENYING its approval, he most certainly GUARANTEED that it WILL turn into litter, in fact the moment it was denied, it became litter. It is there...I am here and nobody from this site will have the opportunity to seek it or log it because it isn't listed here. If I hadn't listed it on Navicache, it would remain there until my next trip to the area (mid August BTW), so what was accomplished? Upon further reading of the "Guidelines" I failed to notice any mention of a magical 150 mile limit (which the approver alluded to...), in fact there is NO SPECIFIC distance mentioned...merely a note about the approver's discretion...therefore this particular guideline is subject to personal grudges or opinions and may or may not be valid reasons. In the topic you linked to, Keystone Approver makes a worthy point; it's not always the Cacher who is the problem, and although honey DOES attract more flies than vinegar, who wants to attract flies? Respect is not demanded and it certainly isn't an entitlement..and if I feel (rightly or wrongly) that I have been insulted by ANYONE, be they Approver, fellow cacher or co-worker...I am going to react to it! The best way to invoke respect is to offer a bit...to EXPECT it merely because you have been endowed with approval-powers is an insult to the members. Back to your original topic Scouter John, MOST of my caches have been approved without question. It is only recently that I have been having trouble with the application of the guidelines. Certainly these rules are NOT set in stone and should be subject to closer review by LOCAL reviewers. I see nothing but potential problems if a reviewer in Texas is charged with approving caches in Saskatchewan...

Thanks for the feedback that was presented in a neutral tone, despite the artillery bursting all around you... This isn't my first rejection either. The FIRST one was a real piece of work, and rejected for the most asinine of reasons...so confident was he in his convictions, that he then approved it less than ten minutes later...if that isn't Olympic quality fence-sitting, I don't know what is! I still say that LOCAL Approvers should review LOCAL caches...period! The Island is crown land, only the North side of the Lake is Private properties. The "sandbox" is another forum where the mods are a bit more "relaxed", only profanities get editted, not opinions. Check Gorak's signature line for the URL. As for my language, you are walking into the middle of the fray...you cannot possibly know the history that "Sparky" has with some of the other cachers. Go to the sandbox and look up some of his posts...you'll see what I mean; and you're right about treating people as they treat you, but you'll see what I mean if you look up his old posts! Nobody cares if I take my ball and go home? Apparently Sparky from Kansas does, or he wouldn't make SUCH an issue of it...in the CANADIAN forums... Yeah, I don't understand it either...actually I do, but it makes no sense! Cheers!

Again...I don't know where you got the impression that people were insulting you. I can't see it anywhere in this thread. You claim to travel a lot and you are taken at face value...this is a good thing! However, it seems as though this "respect" is only given to a few as I also told the "approver" that we travelled a lot (friends, family and YES...vacations!) but I was told that my word wasn't good enough...I was told that some people "lie to approvers". Now, since the cache was NOT approved, this can only imply that he thought I was lying, or that there was something in my history as a Geocacher that meant I was NOT to be trusted...there isn't! I gave ample explanations...we have family, friends, and we travel alot. This sort of explanation would satisfy the guy at the Customs Office, but for some reason, it is not good enough for this "approver". I don't know about things in New Brunswick, I'm sure it's a perfectly wonderful place to live. According to THIS site: http://www.bathurst.ca/findus2.html It would take 6 hours to drive from the southernmost point in NB to to the North and 4 hours from east to west. Here in BC, aside from Vancouver, the next "metropolis" is Kelowna (395 kilometers (245 miles)), and the next Prince George (778km (483 miles) from Vancouver, 685km (425 miles) from Kelowna). As you can see, here in BC we have a much LARGER land mass, and therefore more area to hide caches. Whereon some are satisfied in planting cache after cache after cache in City parks and such, this doesn't appeal to me. As I see it, geocaching should be a wilderness experience that takes you places you won't likely see in a regular day. If this means driving a few miles, then so be it. That's the way we are in BC, even with our gasoline hovering at almost $4/gal. ($0.95/liter) we don't mind taking a bit of a drive to go somewhere interesting. This is also why you will find many kayaking, hiking and mountain climbing caches in BC. Because we have a VAST and VARIED terrain that cries out for hiding caches! Nobody has forgotten that this is a "game"...I am reminded of that DAILY by the antics of some. So, if it IS a game, why the all the powerplays and rigid rules that CANNOT be applied to every situation? Maybe you could give us a demonstration on how to PROPERLY carry out this procedure? Since it seems to concern you so much. Remember, this IS a Public Forum...open to everybody, from everywhere...you're not being very respectful! As for Sparky and Noob, your contributions don't warrant a response, since you seem to go crying to the moderator every time I do. Your attitudes are typical...sticking your noses where it doesn't belong and then crying like little girls when someone THWACKS you! That's all I need to say.

My most humble apologies. Since you preceded your post and suggestion with my name, I made the illogical and erroneous assumption that you were actually referring to me. I apologize for my lapse and jumping to that conclusion and, in the future, if you address me specifically I will realize that you are speaking in general terms and not about me specifically. Thank you for straightening out that misunderstanding and allowing us to go back to our...discussion. I guess I forget that some of the cachers up there revel in twisting what people say. I do think it is comical how people geocide but never leave. Adios! As I see it, you DID address Gorak specifically...there is no "twisting" involved here: Are you going to apologize for being wrong?

...and Sparky seems to be ignoring the facts as they are presented. How's the view from where you are? For those who AREN'T blind, the question was raised as to why I, as a cacher, was being discriminated against because of the actions of some other cachers with whom the "approver" had issues? I had plainly explained and demonstrated that I was willing and able to maintain this cache...he saw things differently and refused to approve it, without reason. So you see Sparkle, this isn't as black and white as you would to believe! I realize that my misfortunes bring some sort of glee for you...but that says more about YOU than it does about me. Now, someone suggested that those outside of the cache area shouldn't participate in discussions of caches in that particular area...I tend to agree. So even though this IS a public forum, this topic plainly has nothing to do with you, and given your ability to see only one side of the story, I think it's best if you didn't participate in a discussion that is CLEARLY beyond your scope of knowledge. Surely there must be something interesting happening somewhere in Kansas that would warrant your attention... Thanks!

I don't know what area you're in, but it is listed at Navicache as "Heffley Lake Cache"...just Northeast of Kamloops, BC.

<Removed by moderator, don't make it personal> Perhaps you could point this out to others who have jumped onto this thread to lambaste me without knowing the details... It's a public thread on a public forum, if you didn't want public replies you've come to the wrong place. As for details the only details they have are the ones you've shared, if you aren't happy with the details they have that's nobody's fault but your own. I'm sorry your cache didn't get approved and I agree that the decission wasn't completely fair. However posting in a public place and then complaining about what comes of the topic you started and gave direction to (as the OP) is ridiculous. Always remember to "do unto others" etc..... If you're gonna come gripe and bash then be prepared to get gripes and be bashed. It does suck but that's how the world works. I understand you don't like people gripping about you or to you or bashing you but you shouldn't be surprised. You set the tune and direction of the discussion so now (unfortunately) you have to live with what you started. Thorin The example I was making, was that others are telling us to basically "mind our own business" with caches out of our area, and yet they are pack-attacking me for speaking MY mind, about MY cache in MY area...see the difference? I don't mind getting "bashed" by the lunatic fringe; it's what they do best and they are simply reacting to an event...just like ants scurrying to protect the eggs when you accidentally disturb the hill... But then to have them turn around and tell us to mind our P's and Q's just reeks of hypocrisy! Tell you what...I won't insult any caches (not that I did that!) that aren't within 500 miles of me and the rest of them do the same...we'll all get along just fine! I can do that, I doubt that many of them can... In the meantime...I can't help but noticed that NONE of them have addressed the actual TOPIC - being unjustly discriminated against by an "Approver" without reason.

Yet I am pack-attacked in this thread, by cachers who aren't even from this Country...I sure hope they received as stern of a reprimand...possibly even "Moderation" notices for their efforts! Nothing more aggravating than seeing "rules" being applied unevenly...

I think it's obvious by now that none of the Cachers "CONTROL" anything...

<Removed by moderator, don't make it personal> Perhaps you could point this out to others who have jumped onto this thread to lambaste me without knowing the details... Nobody is referring to you specifically Mtn-man...and I don't know the fellow who has 300+ caches, although I'm sure he is a fine individual. The point remains that I was disrespected and slandered without precedent by an "approver" who was quoting Chapter and Verse of the rules, with no concern or consideration of the variables that are present. I have yet to see a rule that didn't have an exception. Precisely...which is why I remain; no rule should be an absolute, nor applied absolutely when the "approver" has no reason to suspect that a cacher is irresponsible or a "liar".

Thanks for the suggestion Larry, but this cache is already placed on an Island. The rest of the Lake area is either privately owned property or hellish forest that is almost impenetrable! We placed this cache as a tribute to an area that we have been visiting for the past ten years, this year was the TENTH anniversary of our first visit...the Island has sentimental value, hence the reason we chose it as the hiding spot. The entire point is moot now anyways...after the way I've been treated, even if the decision is reversed, I won't list it here. It is listed elsewhere.

Thank you Peetz, you certainly raise some relevant points, unlike the diverters in this thread! As I told the "approver", I have FOUR caches....two of which are distant ones, and ALL of which are "wilderness" types. I certainly don't have 300 caches, all within city limits! Dino Hunters also makes a point regarding the "vastness" of this Country and certainly of this Province. Does the "approver" have any idea of the geography he has been assigned to? I think nothing of driving over 100 miles in a day to get to an attraction, whether it is a Provinical Park or otherwise. I also explained to the "approver" that this cache is only 4 hours away, peanuts really...but rather than take my geography AND my owned caches into account, I am assumed to be a liar. That IS the issue here, BTW...the disrespect that was shown without precedent. What the majority of you fail to realize is that by the time I made this thread, I had been dealing for almost a week with an immoveable, stubborn approver who refused to listen to any explanations I had, preferring instead to split hairs on a rule that shouldn't be applied to an area as vast as this. Local Caches should be reviewed and approved by LOCAL cachers, not someone living 1000 miles away. As for the rest of the contributors...I certainly hope that none of you ever get "upset", be it at home, at work or on the road, lest you lecture me when I feel that I have been UNJUSTLY SLANDERED!

Hey <Name removed by moderator>, did you get a pair of slippers to go with that hat? <Photo removed by moderator> After all, we can't see your feet! Here's a question Sparky, I had a legitimate beef about a cache of mine that wasn't approved. Why did you feel it was necessary for you to inject your opinion into this discussion? It was neither wanted nor asked for...yet somehow you were convinced that your input was needed. Do you have control issues as well?

Talk about the same old boring tripe.... So, which one are you? <Photo removed by moderator>

Nothing to add at this time....

I guess Sparky forgot his little "tantrums" or he wouldn't be so quick to shoot from the lip...

Carry on Sparky, you know how much respect I have for you and how much I value your opinons and attitude! Ever since we handed you your tail over at the Sandbox, you've been such a non-issue...but hey, never give up on a dream! As for the others, I provided the "approver" with all the details he needed to APPROVE the cache. It is a mere 4 hours from my home, unlike others I have that are physically CLOSER but take longer to reach. There is NOTHING in my history as a Geocacher (despite what that baiting Sparky-troll would have you believe) that suggests that I can't or won't look after my caches. This is simply a POWER-trip... ...and I see that nobody has addressed the issue of KFWB....convenient!

Hmmm....sounds vaguely familiar......... ...Your remarks aren't "respectful" either, Sparky! ...thanks so much for your concern.

The problem is a "control issue". I have told the mock-approver that I was willing and ABLE to maintain this cache. He summarily decided that I was a liar and couldn't be trusted. That is the READER'S DIGEST version of the events. I think J5 put it best when he said: "If others have lied to approvers and their caches or cache placements have proven to be inappropriate, then that's something that should be dealt with on an as-required basis. To paint everyone as a liar and a cheat really is very disrespectful." It may just be Tupperware, but now my credibility has been called into question by someone who doesn't know me from Adam...and that's where I draw the line! If there is something in my history AS A GEOCACHER that gives him cause to consider, that's one thing. But to be UNJUSTIFIABLY lumped into the same crowd as the less-than-scrupulous cachers is a travesty....AND is very disrespectful. ...and since being "respectful" is the catchphrase du jour....

Thanks for your two bits...are you implying that I HAVEN'T contacted Approvers@GC? Why is it that all members are assumed to be lying, untrustworthy felons by those in positions of power? Haven't you gotten the impression by now that I don't CARE if the cache in question is approved or not...this is a matter of PRINCIPLES and about being SLANDERED by an individual who knows NOTHING about me and has NO precedent to be treating me like a criminal..