myotis
-
Posts
1204 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by myotis
-
-
Let's be clear, they are not talking about taking legal action against the cahce placer, what Konnarock Kid & Marge indicated he was told they were going to do would be Law Enforcement Officers "LEOs" issuing criminal citations for violiting these criminal regulations:
The following are prohibited:
(a) Constructing, placing, or maintaining any kind of road, trail, structure, fence, enclosure, communication equipment, significant surface disturbance, or other improvement on National Forest System lands or facilities without a special-use authorization, contract, or approved operating plan when such authorization is required.
* * *
(e) Abandoning any personal property.
36 CFR § 261.10
While it is clear these regulations are not being violated, it is the policy of the Southern Region that placing a geocache without a SUP is a violation of these CRIMINAL prohibitions. While I think the citation could be beat in court, anyone who has a cache on a Southern Region National Forest could get a citation. If I had a cache on any NF is the Southern Region, I would be very concerned with a region policy that this is a criminal act. I do not think this is a close call, it needs to be challenged and I would give a challenge a 99% chance of success. But I agree with you, it would be best for local caching groups to send a letter to the Regional Forester (which I would be happy to draft). The other way to challenge it is for a cacher to get it in writing that they need a SUP and have to pay a fee so this can be appealed. It would be preferable to get the letter from the Supervisor's Officer as the first level appeal would be decided by the Regional Office (which is the only line officer who can fix the problem). If someone wants to do this, I would draft your appeal (which I would give a 99% chance of success) for you.
If you are already confused, don't read this: It is a bit more complicated. Decisions on managing the National Forests are made by Line Officers: Chief, Regional Foresters, Forest Supervisors, and District Rangers. The FS Manuel direction is for this chain of command. Law Enforcement is not under this chain of command-they are kept separate to avoid corruption. The guidance on geocaching is for the land managers, not the LEOs. So the LEOs have no obligation to follow this guidance but there is a good chance they would.
-
Well, the only question now is which one of you brave souls (read: suckers) is going to give it a go?
DFX: Is the "Go" screen still slow as molasses when selecting a waypoint (other than a geocache) from the map screen? In v4,45 I got a whit screen for about 30 seconds.
Not me!!!!!!
-
Its even more narrow than the "Forest Service." Its about the Southern Region of the Forest Service.
-
Further more, any previously placed cache if found and the owner identified could result in a 250 to 300 dollar fine.
As I mentioned, the regulations they erronioulsy claim prohibit geocaching without a SUP are CRIMINAL regulations. So he is right, Forest Service Law Enforcment Officers could issue citations for placing a geocache without a SUP and you could end up in front of a Federal judge. You could argue the points I made to the judge, but the best course is to challenge the regional policy. Only the regional or national office can change the regional policy. So I think there is a need for a formal request to the Regional Forester to change the policy or an appeal challening it. If not anyone who has placed a cache in a Southern Region NF without a SUP is risking ending up before a Federal judge.
-
So I would say there is a need to see their documentation for 36 CFR § 216.5 to see if they complied. So I would suggest one of you send a Freedom of Information Act request to the Southern Region Office which states:
I probably would not start there since there is no indication that the Virginia forests (or any forests with the possible exception of Texas) have considered the Region 8 policy to be an enforceable rule. It seems to be interpreted in other areas as a policy statement or guideline subject to local modification.
As has been observed by the DC Circuit, "By issuing a policy statement, an agency simply lets the public know its current enforcement or adjudicatory approach. The agency retains the discretion and the authority to change its position." Therefore I would not assume the Manual is being treated as a rule or that the communication discussed in earlier posts is anything more than the interpretation of a single ranger. Instead, I would explain the problem to the supervising agency officials in the particular forest (either formally or informally) and ask that they clarify whether geocaching is subject to a special use permit and fee.
The next step depends on that answer. But in any case, keep us informed.
The local Forest Service would look upon it as directions from their boss-that is what it is. My bet is it is the reason why they are saying a permit is required. You are right the FS can change it-but only the Regional Office can change it. The local FS they are dealing with cannot change it, thier bosses expect them to follow it.
While there is no problem with doing what you suggest and it would probably be best to start this way, the FOIA request should still be filled ASAP. It can be done in a few minutes by cutting and pasting. There are time limits on for how long they can take to respond and with a shut down looming, who knows how long it could take to get the answer. If they are relying on it for the basis to require a SUP, you will need to get the answer to the FOIA to challenge the fee. Filing the FOIA is not challenging the rules, it is getting the information you need in case you have to challnge the rule.
-
I think it is likely that a ranger in Virginia (or Florida as another post indicated) looked at the manual and decided to follow it. As I stated earlier, I would not assume it constitutes a rule or policy for the entire forest in that area -- if the a ranger cited the Manual to me and required a fee, I would want to meet with an agency official and take it from there. And if it seemed likely to have wider implications, I would want to do more complete research about how geocaching is treated within the national forests (to present to the officials in charge) and meet with other local cachers (or caching organizations) to determine the appropriate response.
The Forest Service has an appeals process for things like Special Use Permits. This process could be used to challenge the legality of the requirements. In order to file an appeal, you must meet this requirement "Was offered an authorization subject to terms and conditions that the applicant finds unreasonable or impracticable." 36 CFR § 251.86 So if you want to use their formal process to address this, you need to first ask for a permit and they tell you in WRITING that you have to pay a fee. My bet is the rules will get thrown out as they clearly are illelgal and the regs are clear a SUP is not required. You could also write a letter (which they may or may not respond to) pointing out a SUP is not required and asking them to withdraw the requirements.
-
First you need to understand what the Forest Service Manual is. It is not a law or regulation and it is not legally enforceable. It is more or less internal guidance. When they cite something that has CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) that is a Federal Regulation and is legally enforceable. From a legal perceptive, what the CFR says is what matters.
The first argument I would make to challenge them is to argue the supplement that has been referenced (FSM § 2724.44) is a substantive rule and was adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. 5 USC § 553. Something like this is required to go through a rulemaking process that includes the opportunity for public comment.
I have have not had time to go into the federal APA, but it raised flags in my mind. I used to practice in an area of law largely governed by administrative procedures. The agency had an Operations Manual that eventually was held to be unenforceable under the state APA because it had not gone through the rulemaking process. However, the practical effect of that was minimal since specific institutions adopted the former sections of the manual as local rules. I am not sure if any substantive changes were made as a result.
Wild Law points out that normally, the Forest Service Manual does not create a legally enforceable “rule.” They state that it is probably better described as a “policy” under which the agency retains flexibility of action. In dealing with a forest official in Virgina or any other state within Region 8, that distinction should certainly be kept in mind.
Some of the specific forests in Region 8 (notably Texas) simply cite to the Manual. Others have modified it in several ways. As mentioned in a previous post, North Carolina uses the general framework of the Manual, but requires that cachers obtain prior approval for any physical cache placed on their land; that caches be moved or removed within a year unless they have a special permit -- but fees are only mentioned if a cache is placed in connection with a commercial event. I think it would be difficult to challenge these rules on substantive grounds -- and several national forests have adopted similar rules -- but it indicates that the forests have not necessarily considered the Manual to be written in stone.
I think it is likely that a ranger in Virginia (or Florida as another post indicated) looked at the manual and decided to follow it. As I stated earlier, I would not assume it constitutes a rule or policy for the entire forest in that area -- if the a ranger cited the Manual to me and required a fee, I would want to meet with an agency official and take it from there. And if it seemed likely to have wider implications, I would want to do more complete research about how geocaching is treated within the national forests (to present to the officials in charge) and meet with other local cachers (or caching organizations) to determine the appropriate response.
As far as I know, every time the Federal Courts addressed if the Forest Service Handbook and Manuel were legally enforcable they ruled it was not with one exception: Rhodes v. Johnson, 153 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. 1998). I was a plaintiff in that case. In that case it was addressing a particular handbook that had gone through a formal rulemaking process. And that is the only handbook or manul that has gone through a formal rulemaking process.
-
How do I stop stuff like ( c ) being displayed as ©
-
One more point. In my first post I pointed out the Administrative Procedure Act requires a formal rulemaking process for something like that. However, even if it would not meet the APA’s criteria for formal rulemaking, Forest Service Regulations have requirements before they can adopt the requirements in FSM § 2724.44. These are Federal Regulations so they are legally enforceable and the Forest Service must follow them:
36 CFR § 216.4 Determining the need for formal public review of proposed Manual directives.
(a) Agency officials responsible for formulating Manual directives containing applicable standards, criteria, and guidelines shall determine whether substantial public interest or controversy concerning a proposed Manual directive can be expected.
(
The following shall be considered in making this determination:(1) Direct written or oral communication with those known to be interested in the proposal;
(2) The degree to which the proposal is likely to adversely or beneficially affect the general public as well as those known to be interested in the proposal;
(3) The amount of change the proposal represents from current direction;
(4) The extent of recent news media coverage on subjects related to the proposal; and
Code of Federal Regulations / Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property / Vol. 2 / 2010-07-0142
(5) The amount of interest or controversy expressed on previous proposals on the same or similar subjects.
36 CFR § 216.5 Documentation.
The responsible Forest Service official shall document the results of the determination made pursuant to § 216.4(
, and the reasons therefor, in a concise written summary. The summary may be combined with documentation required by NEPA procedures or other applicable law or policy. The summary shall be prepared and filed at the same location as the Forest Service official responsible for developing the Manual directive.So I would say there is a need to see their documentation for 36 CFR § 216.5 to see if they complied. So I would suggest one of you send a Freedom of Information Act request to the Southern Region Office which states:
FOIA Officer
US Forest Service Southern Region
1720 Peachtree Road NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
Dear FOIA Officer:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I request the documentation required by 36 CFR § 216.5 for the Southern Region’s Forest Service Geocaching rules (FSM § 2724.44). If any notices were issued pursuant to 36 CFR § 216.6, please provide a copy. Please provide an electronic copy of the documents.
Put you name, address, phone, and email
You can mail it to them. However, email would be faster. I would call 404-347-7226 (Public Affairs) or 404-347-4177 (Regional Forester) and ask them if a FOIA Request can be submitted to Mailroom R8@fs.fed.us or if you should use another email address. Or you could just send it to that email and mail a copy to be safe.
If they find there is interest, this is what they must do:
§ 216.6 Notice and comment procedures for proposed Manual directives identified for formal public review.
(a) Where it is determined that substantial public interest or controversy concerning a proposed Manual directive can be expected, the following minimum requirements for notifying the public and giving opportunity to comment on the proposal apply:
(1) National Forest and Ranger District Proposals. The responsible official shall determine appropriate means of notifying the public. This may include, but is not limited to, legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation or press release. The public shall have a minimum of 30 calendar days to review and comment on the proposal.
(2) Regional, Station, and Area Proposals. The responsible official shall determine appropriate means of notifying the public. This may include, but is not limited to, notice and summary of the proposal in the Federal Register, legal notice in one or more newspapers of general circulation, or press release. The public shall have a minimum of 30 calendar days to review and comment on the proposal.
(3) National Proposals. The responsible official shall publish a notice and summary of the proposal in the Federal Register, followed by a minimum of 60 calendar days for public review and comment.
(
Agency officials will give direct notice to Federal, State, and local governments and to the public known to be interested in the proposal. Along with the notice, the responsible official shall also provide either a complete proposal or a summary of the proposal for review.© The responsible Forest Service official may conduct additional public participation activities related to the proposed Manual directive as are deemed appropriate and necessary.
(d) Comments received from the public shall be analyzed and considered in the formulation and preparation of the final Manual directive.
(e) The final Manual directive or a summary shall be sent to those who offered comments on the proposed directive and further publicized as deemed appropriate by the responsible official.
-
I found this regarding caching in Allegheny National Forest. It doesn't mention any fee. I think I would like to hear this directly from either an agent of the state, or from the reviewer.
The Allegeheny is in Region 9. The guidiance is for Region 8. As far as I know, there still is no problem with geocaching in Region 9 (basically the midwest and NorthEast)
-
A bit over my head, but you raise some very interesting points, and I'm eager to hear what others have to say about this. May I ask what your qualifications are? You do indeed sound as though you know what you're talking about.I have not read the entire thread, but it is obvious what they are doing is illegal for multiple reasons. This is a bit complicated so I will try to explain it and how you should go about challenging them. I'd be happy to review any correspondence you have with the Forest Service before you send it (send me a message).
First you need to understand what the Forest Service Manual is. It is not a law or regulation and it is not legally enforceable. It is more or less internal guidance. When they cite something that has CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) that is a Federal Regulation and is legally enforceable. From a legal perceptive, what the CFR says is what matters.
The first argument I would make to challenge them is to argue the supplement that has been referenced (FSM § 2724.44) is a substantive rule and was adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. 5 USC § 553. Something like this is required to go through a rulemaking process that includes the opportunity for public comment.
Next argue the regulations they cited do not require a SUP (Special Use Permit). The regulations they cite are CRIMINAL regulations. The ones they cite as a basis for these requirements state:
The following are prohibited:
(a) Constructing, placing, or maintaining any kind of road, trail, structure, fence, enclosure, communication equipment, significant surface disturbance, or other improvement on National Forest System lands or facilities without a special-use authorization, contract, or approved operating plan when such authorization is required.
* * *
(e) Abandoning any personal property.
36 CFR § 261.10
If placing a cache does not fit sections (a) or (e) it is not prohibited and you do not need a SUP. What they are claiming in FSM § 2724.44 is geocaching fits (a) and (e). You still watch the cache and will eventually retrieve it so you are not abandoning it. More importantly unlike (a), (e) does not allow exceptions with a SUP. So if it fits (e), they could not authorize it with a SUP. Likewise, placing a geocache is not "constructing, placing, or maintaining any kind of road, trail, structure, fence, enclosure, communication equipment, significant surface disturbance, or other improvement ." So you do not need a SUP.
Even if geocaching fit (a) or (e), FSM § 2724.44 is still illegal as regulations they ignore require further inquiry to determine if a SUP is required. Federal Regulations state:
(a) All uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources, except those authorized by the regulations governing sharing use of roads (Sec. 212.9); grazing and livestock use (part 222); the sale and disposal of timber and special forest products, such as greens, mushrooms, and medicinal plants (part 223); and minerals (part 228) are designated ``special uses.'' Before conducting a special use, individuals or entities must submit a proposal to the authorized officer and must obtain a special use authorization from the authorized officer,
UNLESS THAT REQUIREMENT IS WAIVED BY PARAGRAPHS © THROUGH (E)(3) OF THIS SECTION.
36 CFR § 251.50
So lets look at the paragraphs that can waive the SUP requirement. This is the first one that would waive the SUP requirement:
© A special use authorization is not required for noncommercial recreational activities, such as camping, picnicking, hiking, fishing, boating, hunting, and horseback riding, or for noncommercial activities involving the expression of views, such as assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, and parades, unless: [none of these would apply to placing a geocache]
36 CFR § 251.50
The other basis that could waive the requirement for a SUP is:
(e) For proposed uses other than a noncommercial group use, a special use authorization is not required if, based upon review of a proposal, the authorized officer determines that the proposed use has one or more of the following characteristics:
(1) The proposed use will have such nominal effects on National Forest System lands, resources, or programs that it is not necessary to establish terms and conditions in a special use authorization to protect National Forest System lands and resources or to avoid conflict with
National Forest System programs or operations;
36 CFR § 251.50
So even if all of the above did not get you out of needing a SUP, they could not require a SUP unless it was necessary to have terms and conditions to protect the forest.
Is this clear?
I'm not an attoreny but I've been sparring with the Forest Service for over 30 years. I've worked on many lawsuits agaisnt the FS (including one that went to the Supreme Court). I've filed hundreds of administrative appeals and have sued them multiple times without an attorny (pro se) and won each time (I got to argue in court against 5 attornies once).
-
I have not read the entire thread, but it is obvious what they are doing is illegal for multiple reasons. This is a bit complicated so I will try to explain it and how you should go about challenging them. I’d be happy to review any correspondence you have with the Forest Service before you send it (send me a message).
First you need to understand what the Forest Service Manual is. It is not a law or regulation and it is not legally enforceable. It is more or less internal guidance. When they cite something that has CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) that is a Federal Regulation and is legally enforceable. From a legal perceptive, what the CFR says is what matters.
The first argument I would make to challenge them is to argue the supplement that has been referenced (FSM § 2724.44) is a substantive rule and was adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. 5 USC § 553. Something like this is required to go through a rulemaking process that includes the opportunity for public comment.
Next argue the regulations they cited do not require a SUP (Special Use Permit). The regulations they cite are CRIMINAL regulations. The ones they cite as a basis for these requirements state:
The following are prohibited:
(a) Constructing, placing, or maintaining any kind of road, trail, structure, fence, enclosure, communication equipment, significant surface disturbance, or other improvement on National Forest System lands or facilities without a special-use authorization, contract, or approved operating plan when such authorization is required.
* * *
(e) Abandoning any personal property.
36 CFR § 261.10
If placing a cache does not fit sections (a) or (e) it is not prohibited and you do not need a SUP. What they are claiming in FSM § 2724.44 is geocaching fits (a) and (e). You still watch the cache and will eventually retrieve it so you are not abandoning it. More importantly unlike (a), (e) does not allow exceptions with a SUP. So if it fits (e), they could not authorize it with a SUP. Likewise, placing a geocache is not “constructing, placing, or maintaining any kind of road, trail, structure, fence, enclosure, communication equipment, significant surface disturbance, or other improvement .” So you do not need a SUP.
Even if geocaching fit (a) or (e), FSM § 2724.44 is still illegal as regulations they ignore require further inquiry to determine if a SUP is required. Federal Regulations state:
(a) All uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources, except those authorized by the regulations governing sharing use of roads (Sec. 212.9); grazing and livestock use (part 222); the sale and disposal of timber and special forest products, such as greens, mushrooms, and medicinal plants (part 223); and minerals (part 228) are designated ``special uses.'' Before conducting a special use, individuals or entities must submit a proposal to the authorized officer and must obtain a special use authorization from the authorized officer,
UNLESS THAT REQUIREMENT IS WAIVED BY PARAGRAPHS © THROUGH (E)(3) OF THIS SECTION.
36 CFR § 251.50
So lets look at the paragraphs that can waive the SUP requirement. This is the first one that would waive the SUP requirement:
© A special use authorization is not required for noncommercial recreational activities, such as camping, picnicking, hiking, fishing, boating, hunting, and horseback riding, or for noncommercial activities involving the expression of views, such as assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, and parades, unless: [none of these would apply to placing a geocache]
36 CFR § 251.50
The other basis that could waive the requirement for a SUP is:
(e) For proposed uses other than a noncommercial group use, a special use authorization is not required if, based upon review of a proposal, the authorized officer determines that the proposed use has one or more of the following characteristics:
(1) The proposed use will have such nominal effects on National Forest System lands, resources, or programs that it is not necessary to establish terms and conditions in a special use authorization to protect National Forest System lands and resources or to avoid conflict with
National Forest System programs or operations;
36 CFR § 251.50
So even if all of the above did not get you out of needing a SUP, they could not require a SUP unless it was necessary to have terms and conditions to protect the forest.
Is this clear?
-
Makes sense. Thanks!
-
I am wondering if that would speed it up or if defragmenting could cause problems with the copy protection (i.e., does a file need to be in a certian place on the drive).
-
and who said it was okay for staff members to log caches they did not find!!!
Please read your first post. You said staff were told they could log caches they did not find. One of the bogus finds on Jolly Rancher (the one you have to wade out to) says, "I was going to DNF this cache, but instead I'm going to take advantage of an offer made to me by the MOGA coordinators. As one of the people who helped hide the competition punches, I am claiming this as a "trade" cache."
Maybe you should read my first post, when I said "IN THE PAST.. staff were told they cold log caches since they were temporary"! Come on now you are making stuff up to suit your needs (by the way, what are your needs?)! Now, tell me who said it? I was never told I could log a cache! But I also didn't hide any this year, but wait you said you did! So who from the moga organizers told you, "YOU COULD DO IT"? Silence. That's what I thought!
TheMadChef
MOGA MOGA MOGA!!!
Jolly Ranger is a cache from this year GC2Q78J I quoted the log of one of the bogus finds that said MOGA coordinators told him he could log caches he did not find in exchange for volunteering. And he is not the only MOGA staff person who is claiming the cache as a reward for volunteering. So lets be crystal clear here, are you saying that not only are these cachers claiming they found a cache they did not find, but also that their claim that MOGA staff has authorized these bogus finds in exchange for volunteering is not true? While it sounds like nothing will be done about the competitors logging caches they did not find as a reward for finding a punch, does MOGA staff intend to delete the bogus logs of those claiming finds for volunteering? I certainly hope so as this is by far the most egregious aspect of this.
Once again, Who told you? DId they place a cache and are now logging it since they don't get ownership? Or did they find a punch? The point is Myotis, play the game you want to, if you don't like MOGA, don't attend it! I am sorry that you missed this year but to tell you the truth, you were not missed by ME!
Since you know all MYOTIS I now put you in charge!
There goes MOGA!!!!
I read the logs-have you? You are the one identifying yourself as the "MOGA Representative." It seems like the MOGA respesentative does not want to answer if MOGA staff are telling people they can log finds for voluntering or if the staff people are not telling the truth in thier bogus logs.
For those thinking of going to future MOGAs, I am glad MadChef and Arthur & Trillian are showing you how you will be treated if you don't worship numbers!
-
I don't know where you cached, but I found plenty of caches nearby several of the bike trails in the park! I guess you don't like those either! By the way the last time I checked it was called MOGA... the MIDWEST OPEN GEOCACHING ADVENTURE...not the MYOTIS OPEN GEOCACHING ADVENTURE!!! We place the caches for the masses, not for you! Besides I have done several of your caches were I bushwacked through thick stuff..when did you quit liking your own caches!!!
TheMadChef
While you are off topic, I will point out none of the MOGA caches were in the park, they are all on the ACOE managed land. While you went off topic, the issue I raised in response to another off topic question was the MOGA cache page advertised 100 caches on the bike trail. There were not any caches anywhere near the nicest parts of the bike trail. It just seems to me if you advertise 100 caches on the bike trail to get people to the event, there should be a good faith effort to put a 100 caches on the bike trail. I work to put my caches where you can get to them via a trail-none of my caches (othere than the MOGA caches I helped placed) are in invassives jungles. Its not just think stuff or that they can be a nightmare to get through, its is deperssing knowing the devestating impact the invassives are having on the native species. When I did MOGA caches I did not see a single spring wildflower. I got so frustrated with how bad the invaasives were, I stopped caching and headed over to the park and saw lots of spring wildflowers.
How Do I go off topic when I am answering your remarks with the truth while once again you make up facts! Which bike trail are you talking about the one in the state park or the ones around Rend Lake! OR do they physically have to be on the bike trail for you to find them, not near it! By the way you don't mention how many caches you looked for, only the Jolly Roger cache! Did you even look at the area or were you armchairing it? How about the Tresure Chest did you even walk along the trail across the bridge down the spillway trail and then a short bushwack to the treasure chest? I am sorry that once again your ego and selfishness have resulted in you not having a good time again! Please DON'T MAKE THINGS UP TO SUIT YOUR FANCY!
The topic of the thread was about two practices at MOGA: staff claiming finds for volunteering and competitors claiming finds they did not find. Your buddy started attacking me and going off topic. You were responding to my response to his off topic charge. Thats why I am saying this is off topic. Maybe you should listen instead of just throwing insults. As I previoulsy pointed out, I have GPSed every trail, gravel road, and mowed path down there. I've been all it the area. All the caches are on the ACOE land so I figured it was pretty obvioud I am talking about the bike trail on ACOE managed land. Yes I did ride my bike over to the treasure chest. I really enjoyed that one. You might want to rethink where it is located. Did you notice all the levees and water control structures? It looks like the area may be seasonally flooded. There is no bush honeysuckle in there and flooding kills it-(another warning sign the area may get flooded). If it is flooded, the cache will be destroyed. The nicest part of the bike trail is down there in the bottoms-all those connecting unpaved roads are also a nice place to walk or ride your bike. Its such a nice place I took a nice ride down there after I found the cache. Its one of the areas I tried to volunteer to hide MOGA caches. Besides being very familuar with the area, I did a lot of looking on my bike. I passed by several caches that appeared to be out in the middle of invassive jungles no where near the trail. What I would say would be a reasonable expection of what the cache page promised would be caches reasonably accessable from the bike trail. You ride you bike or walk a while and then stop and get a cache. A good example of the difference is when my partner and I were hiding caches, one was targetted about 500 feet from the bike trail in a really bad invassive jungle. I wanted to hide the cache on the edge of the invassive jungle-I thought it would be cruel to have people go back into that jungle - particularly after things start to green up. But I was overruled.
-
and who said it was okay for staff members to log caches they did not find!!!
Please read your first post. You said staff were told they could log caches they did not find. One of the bogus finds on Jolly Rancher (the one you have to wade out to) says, "I was going to DNF this cache, but instead I'm going to take advantage of an offer made to me by the MOGA coordinators. As one of the people who helped hide the competition punches, I am claiming this as a "trade" cache."
Maybe you should read my first post, when I said "IN THE PAST.. staff were told they cold log caches since they were temporary"! Come on now you are making stuff up to suit your needs (by the way, what are your needs?)! Now, tell me who said it? I was never told I could log a cache! But I also didn't hide any this year, but wait you said you did! So who from the moga organizers told you, "YOU COULD DO IT"? Silence. That's what I thought!
TheMadChef
MOGA MOGA MOGA!!!
Jolly Ranger is a cache from this year GC2Q78J I quoted the log of one of the bogus finds that said MOGA coordinators told him he could log caches he did not find in exchange for volunteering. And he is not the only MOGA staff person who is claiming the cache as a reward for volunteering. So lets be crystal clear here, are you saying that not only are these cachers claiming they found a cache they did not find, but also that their claim that MOGA staff has authorized these bogus finds in exchange for volunteering is not true? While it sounds like nothing will be done about the competitors logging caches they did not find as a reward for finding a punch, does MOGA staff intend to delete the bogus logs of those claiming finds for volunteering? I certainly hope so as this is by far the most egregious aspect of this.
-
Cool, a list of the GC codes for the caches. I can I log them too? After all, I haven't found them either.
No! While they allow you to claim finds you did not find if you volunteer or pay a fee to compete, if anyone else logs them without finding them, they go after you. MOGA Staff publiclly called out a local cacher when they apparently were logging a bunch of the MOGA Caches up at Mark Twain Lake that they did not find. There was even talk of making him walk the plank at this years MOGA! I don't see any difference-both are logging caches you did not find, maybe our MOGA rep can explain it
-
I don't know where you cached, but I found plenty of caches nearby several of the bike trails in the park! I guess you don't like those either! By the way the last time I checked it was called MOGA... the MIDWEST OPEN GEOCACHING ADVENTURE...not the MYOTIS OPEN GEOCACHING ADVENTURE!!! We place the caches for the masses, not for you! Besides I have done several of your caches were I bushwacked through thick stuff..when did you quit liking your own caches!!!
TheMadChef
While you are off topic, I will point out none of the MOGA caches were in the park, they are all on the ACOE managed land. While you went off topic, the issue I raised in response to another off topic question was the MOGA cache page advertised 100 caches on the bike trail. There were not any caches anywhere near the nicest parts of the bike trail. It just seems to me if you advertise 100 caches on the bike trail to get people to the event, there should be a good faith effort to put a 100 caches on the bike trail. I work to put my caches where you can get to them via a trail-none of my caches (othere than the MOGA caches I helped placed) are in invassives jungles. Its not just think stuff or that they can be a nightmare to get through, its is deperssing knowing the devestating impact the invassives are having on the native species. When I did MOGA caches I did not see a single spring wildflower. I got so frustrated with how bad the invaasives were, I stopped caching and headed over to the park and saw lots of spring wildflowers.
-
and who said it was okay for staff members to log caches they did not find!!!
Please read your first post. You said staff were told they could log caches they did not find. One of the bogus finds on Jolly Rancher (the one you have to wade out to) says, "I was going to DNF this cache, but instead I'm going to take advantage of an offer made to me by the MOGA coordinators. As one of the people who helped hide the competition punches, I am claiming this as a "trade" cache."
-
Folks, this thread was started by a person who has nothing better to do than to troll the SLAGA mailing list, stirring the pot every time he gets the chance. He'll never be satisfied unless caching is tailored to what he likes and quite unfortunately reiterates the sentiment all the time. That's all he's doing now. He's making a big complaint thread just because the local cachers here failed to agree with him.
This thread is nothing more than a self-serving device to get jollies by bashing a very popular and fun event.
This is mild for him--he gets even worse than this if you don't worship at the alter of numbers. If you don't worship numbers he will attack you. And he is not alone in these kinds of messages if you dare to not worship numbers around here!
-
How it really works is that you get credit for each cache that you punch on your competition card. At the end of MOGA they let you know which cache goes for that punch you found so that way you get credit for the cache. So at the end of the two and a half hours I had 35 of the fifty punches so when it was done I knew that I still had 15 caches to find at the end of the day to find and sign the caches before I headed home after the weekend. And this is all done on foot, you are not allowed to use a car to get around while finding them.
Sounds like fun, but how is it geocaching?
That is what I'm saying too. How is this geocaching? Your not finding any caches your finding hole punches. I understand the theory behind the race but I really think it's lame to claim caches that you didn't find and sign the log. It seems to me that you don't even need caches for this compition just hole punches. Why even have any caches linked to this race at all. It's the punches your after not the cache itself. We have the Rough Neck events down in Ocotillo Wells and they have a BUNCH of temp caches that we don't claim finds. I'm pretty sure people will keep doing these MOGA events even if they don't get credit for finds. It's the CHAMP status people want.
I love people stateing when they don't know facts. The punches are hidden in cache containers. So you are finding caches that house the punches. By the way, I love being the CHAMP. [
] Check the link on the punches. http://www.mogageo.com/What's next will you start logging a find everytime you find your lunch in a tupperware container?
The cache was miles away from the container you found. You did not find the cache.
-
Thank you for your criticisms, I agree with most people in not counting these as true finds. That is why I don't! In fact at the event this year and the past some competitors also agree and do not log the associated caches as finds! But there are those certain competitors who feel like they still deserve a smiley for all the effort! If they could not log them, then they might not want to compete! Now considering the whole reason why MOGA was started was for the competition that doesn't make sense!
In fact if Groundspeak and the reviewers would allow it, I wouldn't mind placing the caches and creating caches pages for the punches w/ containers. Then the next day I would archive it! But this practice has also been banned by Groundspeak! That is why we do it the way we do! It is true that in the past we would place the punches within .1 miles of associated caches, but due to the fact that we can't place 100 permanent caches in a State Park (where the MOGA competition was), we had to place the 100 permanent caches still nearby on ACOE approved land! Once again, I know when putting on MEGA events like this you are going to have problems, now that it is addressed I'm sure next years staff will work on this problem!
We can't make everyone happy, but we still try to accomodate every one, even the ones who don't agree with us?
TheMadChef
MOGA Representative
IMHO saying well most people don't do it is not an excuse to tell people they can claim finds on caches they did not find in exchange for volunteering or finding a punch. Are you suggesting that people who legitimately got that cache out in the water or someone like me who went out up to thier waste and had to log a DNF because the waves were getting too high should not be upset with some of the MOGA staff claiming it as a find in exchange for volunteering? Would you at least agree that nonone should be claiming that cache as a find if they did not find it. I just don't see how you can object to someone callng what some SLAGA Staff did on that cache cheating. That was the lowest I have ever seen someone stoop in geocachig and if they had not done that I probably would not have started this thread.
If people need "finds" as a reward, then it should be a contest to find geocaches, not a contest to find punches. It never made sense to me for geocachers to compete finding punches instead of caches. People go to events and many times there are "poker runs." You use your GPS to find tupperware with poker chips. Then you get prizes and awards. But you don't get to claim the tupperware you found with your GPS as a find on a cahce miles away that you did not find. People compete in the poker runs without getting finds as rewards.
-
BRAVO, TheMadChef!
I have been on the MOGA staff for two years and not once have I logged a cache there without actually finding it. To me, MOGA is more of a social event, so caching there is not high on my agenda.
I can remember last year you complained about how it was so hard to hike to the MOGA caches while it was at Mark Twain Lake. You stated that they should be easy to get to and along trails. Have you actually spent any time in that area? Yes, there are trails, but there's no way so many caches could be hidden without venturing off those precious trails of yours. Is that your big beef? They are not easy to get to while caching? I have not been in the hiding aspect of the event, but I do know those that do want to make it a challenge to the competitors.
You didn't even attend this year's event, so what right have you to complain about how it was conducted? Is it because it doesn't follow your narrow views about what geocaching is supposed to be?
Let's get this straight. Wading out up to my waste in cold water, having to log a DNF because the waves were getting too high, and then finding some MOGA staff had claimed the cache as a find in exchange for volunteering at the event does not give me a right to complain about the cheating? Fighting through an invassive jungle to find a cache, having to use my compass to find my way back out, and finding people who were nowhere near the cache claiming it as a "find" does not give me a right to question this practice?
Your other complaint is off topic, but since you raise it I will respond. I had been disappointed the last few years of MOGA failing to provide caches for those who enjoy a nice walk or bike ride finding caches. I don't like caching in invassive jungles. Since I knew there were lots of nice trails at Rend Lake, I made multiple offers to help hide the caches. I spent several days at Rend Lake GPSing every trail, parking lot, grass road, gravel road, etc. I also looked for good places to hide caches. I then made a map to make it easy to plan caches where people could enjoy nice walking or bike riding caching. I never heard anything until a local listserve announcement for a workday to hide the 100 caches that the MOGA cache page very clearly stated would be along the bike trail. The areas where the cache had been preselected were not along the bike trail-it was like the trail was being avoided. Instead of finding nice places to hide caches on the bike trail, it was more like a carpet bombing. In fact, there were no caches planned anywhere near the nicest parts of the bike trail. For the caches my partner and I were assigned, I tried to get them hidden consistent with what the MOGA page was advertising (i.e., along the bike trail). But I was overruled. I volunteered to go back down and hide some more MOGA caches along the nicest parts of the bike trail that had no caches. But my offer was not accepted. As a result, while the cache page promised 100 caches along the bike trail, less than 10 could be accurately called along the bike trail. If you want to provide caches for people who like to go through invassives jungles, that fine. But if the event advertises 100 caches along the bike trail, an attempt to hide caches along the bike trail should be made. But that is not the issue of this thread.
I am not sure how you equate you must find the cache to claim it as a find a "narrow view" of geocaching.
The following shall be considered in making this determination:
] Check the link on the punches.
Problems in Virginia National Forests?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
That is correct. They are not saying there is a problem with finding a cache, they are just saying it is a criminal violation of Federal regulaitons to place a cache without a SUP.