MT Fellwalker

My thanks to those who were able to provide additional confirmation of this policy. I informed everyone of the regulations regarding geocaching and Idaho's wildlife management areas as soon as I learned of them. There is of course no requirement that agencies contact Groundspeak when new policies are implemented, so often we learn of them only after receiving a letter similar to the one I quoted. Going forward we will endeavor to avoid listing geocaches in these areas, but as always rely upon individual cache owners to ensure that they have adequate permission. We certainly understand that due to the timing of this announcement it may not be possible for all of the containers in the areas in question to be removed in the immediate future, but please remember the importance of maintaining good relations with local land managers and get to them as soon as possible.

Groundspeak has received the following letter from an employee of the Idaho Fish & Game Commission - Since the container has been removed I have archived the listing. For anyone reading this, please note that there appears to be other nearby geocaches that may also be in this management area, as well as other management areas across the state. They should be removed and archived as soon as possible. If the policies of Idaho Fish & Game change in the future, we'll be more than happy to once again list geocaches in these areas. Thank you.

Once again, geocaching.com does not change the ownership of a cache listing without the owner's permission. While that occurred occasionally in the past, for certain caches of 'historic' value, it led to many problems, including cache owners reappearing after two or three years absence to complain their geocaches had been 'stolen.' This thread is for owners seeking someone to take over their listing voluntarily. If there is a geocache in your area that is in dire need of maintenance, you can always help out the owner by 'freshening it up' a bit.

I think that's enough. This discussion, such as it is, is only going downhill. Thank you to those who attempted to respond in a constructive manner.

Per a request by the its creator, I am closing this thread.

Let's remember to stay more or less on topic and not veer off into discussions of gun possession and characterizations of those who do or do not own them. Thanks.

Okay, folks, nothing to see here, move along... Seriously, we've probably all held onto someone else's trackables a little too long at one point or another. I'm proud of the Northwest forums measured response to these problems. In other corners of the world this would be a big deal. It's very nice to see some restraint in the responses here. Once again the Pacific Northwest leads by example... Way to go, guys!! Oh, and Happy Holidays!

A most happy Agnostica or whatever holiday you celebrate! May the Season's well-wishes be with you throughout the New Year! . . . Oh, and go hide lots of fun caches!!

As is often the case with a forum thread started the day after someone's submission is archived, there is more than one side to this story. I personally do not think that the geocaching.com guidelines that ask that you have "adequate permission" mean that you should try and ensure that that permission means that only you, your friends, and those you 'invite' may place geocaches in a particular area. Geocaching (including placing caches) is an activity that in my opinion should be open to all, not a select group of 'chosen'. Nor do I think that receiving "adequate permission" means that you have any grounds upon which to justify 'confiscating' geocaches on another agency's land simply because you believe that they might not have been placed with explicit permission. You, as a geocacher, are not in the position to make that determination, and have not been empowered to take another's property.

We've received a request from Cricketace44, who doesn't feel able to maintain their geocaches any longer and would like us to find folks willing to adopt them. The caches are - Great Blue Heron Rookery (GCNFN0) Knox on Wood (GCKEP4) Home Run Alley (GCJKT1) Fort Hall and Beyond (GCJFQN) The Capretz Method (GCJFM5) Note that Home Run Alley is currently disabled and needs to be checked to ensure it's still there before we'll enable it and transfer ownership. Otherwise, if the cache is confirmed gone by a previous finder we'll archive the listing and open up the area for new submissions. If you are interested in adopting any of these geocaches, send me an e-mail and we'll go from there. For obvious reasons you need to have found the container before you can adopt it. Thanks! MT Fellwalker

That's silly.

Then perhaps you shouldn't post innuendo, gossip and lies. So much for a clean slate. The 'problem', as you recall, was that you placed a container too close to an established cache. When I archived it you became unhappy and wanted preferential treatment in violation of the guidelines. While exceptions can be made when there is a barrier such as an interstate highway, a river with no nearby bridges, cliffs and the like, these two caches in the same park were separated by nothing more than a grassy lawn. If you or any other geocacher ever have any additional concerns, I am always available to address them via e-mail. According to the cache page, ' Posted: 4/20/2005 10:32 PM'. That's Pacific Daylight Saving Time, after many folks have retired for the evening. No doubt folks are wondering why it has not yet been listed, a whole 12 hours later. I've posted this standard note to the page - As is always the case with all puzzle and multicaches, I'll need the coordinates of all stages, including those of the final container. Please post them in a reviewer's note to the cache page (it will be automatically deleted when the submission is listed). E-mail me via the link on my profile page when you have done so, and I'll be able to complete my review at that time. Thanks! MT Fellwalker I look forward to your e-mail.

None of the logs I quoted are from anyone I suspect of being the local problem child. Perhaps there are additional ones I did not happen to come across in my superficial search. Then there was also the cache submission in the same general area in which the owner invited finders to leave graffiti on the local rock faces. That one I declined to list until the suggestion was removed, but it now appears that this activity is more widespread than I suspected at the time. That's very unfortunate.

I guess I didn't really expect the individuals involved to own up to their actions and apologize or anything, but I did sort of think that someone would have an opinion about geocachers carving their names into rock walls and such. Just so we're clear on the concept, not only is it against the law in Idaho to deface scenic objects, but doing so does nothing but hurt the image of geocachers. We already face an uphill battle with many land managers who don't understand or appreciate our desire to use public lands in a new and different way. The last thing we need to do is give them more reasons to consider banning the sport. So next time you think it'll be fun to plaster a little graffiti around, don't. Future geocachers will thank you...

I came across a recent log that read in part - I e-mailed and asked 'what rock?', and the response was that the 'cache had a little rock to sign to sign your name on, it was placed by the owner'. But then there was this from a later log on the same cache - and this one from the same day on another cache - Now I might be confused, but these certainly don't sound like small rocks placed inside containers for folks to sign. ..

As has been correctly pointed out by others, this isn't a geocaching topic, so I'm closing it. Feel free to send future job offers directly to MTFellwalker@geocachingadmin.com

Renegade Knight, remind me why the Idaho forums have an off-topic forum? For that matter, why have a bunch of different sections at all? As I recall, you tend to respect the divisions there and post as appropriate for the area you're in. You're correct; this is a forum and forums are places to discuss things. But forums have topics, and not every discussion belongs in every forum. You know that, and respect it in the forums that you have an personal interest in. --- This all started with a situation that had gotten out of hand, and attempts to cool things down weren't working. A few people just couldn't get the message, and attempted to continue the flames, and so those threads got closed as well. Maybe some well-meaning people got caught in the crossfire, and if that's the case, I for one am sorry to hear of it. But this isn't the first time this sort of thing has spun out of control, and this time it was happening again. So actions were taken across the board. Maybe the United Kingdom forum could have handled it on your own, but it was only fair to close the threads here as well if they were being closed everywhere else. Stevexxx, and the rest who are feeling talked down to... I'm sorry you think that's what's been happening. Actually, I'm trying to do just the opposite. I'm trusting that you are all thinking adults, and can see how it can be harmful to continue a discussion when it's turned bad and is causing pain and angst. So here's to chance to prove me correct. Or not ...

You know, I misspoke when I responded to the other thread. I talked about people being thrown out for going on about stuff the owner of the establishment didn't want them to go on about. I was wrong. To my knowledge, no one's actually been thrown out over this current round of posts. But people have been asked to drop certain topics. --- Over Christmas weekend, I got together with my wife's family at my brother-in-law's. Somewhere around Christmas Eve, the discussion turned to politics. Now, I've read a bit here and there about how interested people all over the world are in American politics and the recent election, and I've even seen some stuff here and there in these forums on how some Brits in particular feel about things. None of it compares to how strongly we Americans feel about matters currently, even within the same family. So there we were, three or four of us arguing about the last election and the current administration and what might happen with the next election ... We were getting louder and louder, more and more heated, and the members of the family who weren't immediately involved in the debate were becoming more and more stressed and unhappy. We were spoiling Christmas. And so my mother-in-law finally asked us all to drop it and move on, to focus on what we were all in town for. What do you all think? Should I have become more angry and yelled at her for censoring me? I didn't feel like I was being treated like a naughty dog, I didn't demand the right to use 'my established space' in my brother-in-law's house as I wished. I was part of the group that was spoiling the peace. I was part of the problem. If we had felt a need to continue despite that, we could have always taken it outside, gone for a walk or three around the block or something. No one was keeping us from talking, censoring us. They were just asking us to not forget why we were here, and to be courteous to the rest of the folks in the house. --- Some of you have put money into geocaching.com, some of you have put in time and effort. If that's the case, if you feel you deserve credit for it, just think how much more time and effort the cache reviewers and moderators have put in, day in and day out. If you deserve respectful and polite treatment, Then surely so do they. Some terrible things have happened in the recent past. The tsunami, maybe the American elections depending on where you stand on some issues, but the Internet's a really big place with plenty of room to talk about all of them, to get involved if you wish. We're all here, in this place, on geocaching.com, for another reason. If we all stand around in the middle of the forums and go on about those topics that have nothing to do with geocaching, if we get louder and louder, more and more heated, we're going to spoil things for everyone else. So folks were asked to drop the discussion. When it didn't happen quickly enough, the message was repeated more forcefully and with accompanying action. That upset people, and may or may not have been the best way to handle the situation. I can't say; my mother-in-law can be forceful and make me angry, too. That's doesn't mean she's been out-of-line to behave that way. You've been asked to move on, and yet there's still this discussion about how wronged people feel. This isn't moving on. If you just can stand not talking about the subject, go take a walk around the block. Take it to e-mail, find any of the multitude of places on the Net where you can help on relief efforts, whatever. You aren't being censored. Your choice - hang out here and talk about geocaching, go somewhere else to talk about things appropriate to talk about there. Thanks.

Just a comment, from one of those dadgum yanks. There's lots of talk about censorship on-line, but something to ruminate upon... With geocaching.com, you are in someone else's space, their home or perhaps their store if you prefer. It's not censorship if I throw you out of the party at my place because you had too much to drink and won't shut up about that Unite Ireland Now! campaign you're involved in. It's not censorship if I call the police to escort you off-premises for harassing the customers in my shop to donate to your church charity fund. It's not censorship. You can stand out on the public sidewalk and yell all you want on the topic. You can go down to the pub and tell everyone I'm a bastard because I don't support your cause. You can write the local paper and get your opinions heard. You can create your own webpage, blog or mailing list and complain about me and extol your beliefs. You are not being censored. And the funny thing is, I never said I didn't think the cause was just, or the monies were not needed. Maybe I don't, but maybe I do. But what I'm saying for sure is that there's times and places for such things, and times and places that such discussions aren't appropriate. I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples without me making this post longer than it already is. So just remember that this is Jeremy Irish's house before you start crying censorship. His place, his rules. He's said this place is for geocaching, and that's what we're talking about. You want to discuss other Very Important Subjects? Great. Head off somewhere appropriate and have at it. But don't get mad because you have been asked to not do it here. Hopefully the peeps get that. MT Fellwalker

Happy Holidays to one and all! I hope everyone has a fantastic season, and gets some great geo-swag for the upcoming year!

Dude, all posted logs you receive via e-mail come from 'noreply@'. It's how the system works. For what it's worth, you haven't offended me, even now. You just need to submit caches I can approve under geocaching.com guidelines. The more caches the better. But I do have a job to do, and it doesn't involve rubber stamping submissions. If it did, they'd replace me with a chimp (which some folks would no doubt think would be an improvement). When I'm reviewing webcams, all I have to go on is what's provided. It's not like my horde of minions are free to run out and stand on street corners while I play with the controls. I need them to continue collecting ammo cans so I can finish building my geocache mansion. (Not sure where they are getting them, but there's been a real influx recently...) If you really feel the need, send me a copy of that pimple picture to demostrate what's possible with this camera. If it's as clear as you say there will be no problem approving the cache, and I promise it won't show up on sleazy porn site. I sell to only the most reputable dealers of erotica...

How do you think I felt? I had to split rscout's message into three notes just to post a record of it to the cache page. Incidently, for those trying to follow at home, everything between ... QUOTE- and -/QUOTE ... was their e-mail I was responding to. The last section was my actual response. Rscout, you are the one who informed me that you live too far away to maintain a cache at this location - '(WE DID NOT PLACE A PHYSICAL CACHE AS IT IS OVER 150 MILES AWAY AND WE DID NOT FEEL WE WOULD BE UP THERE AS OFFEN AS MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN IT.)' You've said you do not wish to create a multicache, and even if you would, you have said you cannot maintain one because Billings is too far from Great Falls for you to travel if there's a problem. You have left me no option but to archive your submission.

First, you need to go back and read my post in this thread. Next, here's my log for the cache you mention - This was a note I had intended to post before 'LoneFWolf' posted the Should Be Archived notes. It just happened that the SBA notes occurred in the same time frame. I thought it was clear enough for georapper's understanding, but I'll explain in more detail since you asked so nicely. Sloppin' in the Dirt was not this puzzle cache originally. The write-up that's there now is for a different cache, one that georapper submitted and which I tried to work out with him. There were questions regarding the accuracy of the final coordinates he gave (two different sets, miles apart, in different directions, even though the puzzle itself had not changed), whose land the cache was hidden on (no answer, regarding either location), and, if the area was privately owned, whether or not permission had been received (again, no answer). As I noted in the previous thread, georapper again chose to react in a hostile manner to my questions, and eventually archived the cache rather than answer them. He then took an existing cache and replaced its write-up with the one for the cache he was unwilling to have examined by the geocaching.com reviewers. I do not know where the container for this 'recycled' cache is, on whose land it is hidden, or whether or not its placement violates either the law or the guidelines for geocaching.com. Whether or not 'LoneFWolf' posted a Should Be Archived note, this cache could not remain listed the way it was. What your timeline fails to account for is that the history of georapper's conflicts with geocaching.com did not start with the recent pirate. Nor does it consider the private communications between georapper, myself, and many of the other staff members of geocaching.com. That is understandable, of course, but it does mean you should be very careful presuming you know the entire story or making any assumptions regarding the motivations of the people involved.

As the reviewer of the 'prolific local' in question, perhaps I could provide another viewpoint. Roughly one quarter of the submissions he has made during my time covering Idaho were rejected because they were hidden much too close to existing caches, primarily yours interestingly enough. Are you ready to archive your caches so his can be approved? While I did not read all of the archive notes he posted today, several of the ones I did took potshots at Southeastern Idaho cachers, not the reviewers. If what you have said is true, his attacks seem misplaced to say the least. One of the ones archived today has apparently had a missing step since last fall, but was not checked on until a couple weeks ago, when he finally disabled it. Despite this, a found log was posted by his sock puppet account the next day. This was one of the caches he deemed 'to hard' (sic) for the locals. I'd likely find a multicache with missing steps too hard myself. Another of today's archived caches had had the original description wiped out and another one inserted. That cache deserved to be archived since it is no longer the submission that was originally approved. The cache write-up that was inserted? It was one that he had submitted for approval, but when asked for details regarding its location he repeatedly avoided answering my questions. The times when he did respond to my queries, his e-mails were combative and insulting and rarely helpful in determining the appropriateness of his submissions. Repeatedly he chose to fight the submission process and me as the reviewer rather than work with me to find ways to make his caches work for listing with geocaching.com. So perhaps you are correct and 'listing was becoming too much of a problem'. It seems odd however that he is the only one in Idaho who has been having this difficulty. If what you say is true, I wonder why there have been so many other caches approved during the time period in question. I wish him well with his search for a place for 'OTHER, BETTER CACHES' (as he calls them in his geocaching.com profile) on the other listing sites. Hopefully they are more tolerant of being abused than I am.

'How do we permanently fix the major issues with the forums?'