lessenergy

Yes it is but be carefull crossing the border. Make sure you tell them you have it and be prepared to justify the reason for it. Also, you may have difficulty bringing it back to the US. I have no personal experience with crossing the border with bear spray - this is just what I have heard from others. I do own pepper spay and take it with me on any wilderness trip I do. I bought it on-line from a Canadian supplier and had it mailed to me. No problems. It is perfectly legal - that is bear spray is legal, as I understand it pepper spray for use on humans is not so don't carry it on your belt unless you are actually in the woods. And for what it's worth, bears are not really a problem and I have never worried about them much. I have only seen two and both ran away very fast as soon as they saw me. I bought mine when I started to take my young son on wilderness trips just because it made me feel better to have it when he was around. When doing any extending hiking in bear country I wear a bear bell. If I had to choose between a bear bell and bear spray, I'd pick the bear bell. Les.

This is a post I initially put under a different forum and then thought better of it and decided it would be better off here. Here is a slightly modified version of my original post. ________________________ I agree that the workload of the approvers would be too much if they had to confirm approval for every cache from the land managers. Not a great idea on my part. How about, as an alternative, the geocache is not approved unless: 1) There is blanket approval by the land manager 2) The person placing the geocache gets approval from the land manager and forwards proof of that approval along with his/her request that the geocache be registered. In the vast majority of cases this would take the form of flipping an e-mail that the cacher has recieved which is only marginally more work intensive for the approver. Or - even easier - no approval of a geocache without providing an e-mail address of the land manager (everyone will have an e-mail address). Then the geocache can be approved immediately and the only other thing that needs to be done is send out a very quick form e-mail, something like, "GC.com is confirming your approval of a geocache here - *****. Thank you very much for allowing our members to use your land. Here is a copy of our code of ethics. If you have any questions, please visit our site or e-mail me at...." 3) Any other intelligent exception should be considered by the approver. Approvers are committed to the sport and I would be happy to trust their judgement in the few cases that may require an exception. 4) Any cacher who has been found to falsely state (s)he had approval when (s)he did not, gets her/his rights to register future caches revoked for some period of time - maybe start with 3 months for the first time and extend it from there. (And of course the geocache is archived.) The plain fact is that, while some cachers ask for permission first, most do not. As the sport becomes more popular and land managers become more aware of it, they are going to come down hard on this sport by simply banning it. From their perspective people have been using the land in a way not anticipated by them and unknown to them and when they are surprised to find this out, they quite naturally react with a hostile attitude toward the sport. (We have seen this happen already.) Would it not be better to be proactive on this and demonstrate in advance of any complaints that we are responsible? Why give them reason to complain? Not asking for permission provides a very short term gain for the geocacher but hurts the sport in the longer term as land managers react poorly. Why shouldn't GC.com be on the leading edge of this issue rather than having to defend what appears to be the illicit use of public land? (From the land manager's point of view). Since the approvers know full well that in the majority of cases permission is not actually granted the credibility of GC.com and the particular rule on getting approval is pretty thin and it makes the approvers, GC.com and the sport look bad. (You pick the % of caches that are placed without approval. I'd guess 80-90% but you have more experience with this than I), Les.

I have deleted my own post. The issue I raised is better discussed elsewhere. If I could really delete it in it's entirety then you would not have to read even this. Thanks, Les.

As someone just learning about this sport may I add another item to the code of ethics? Do get permission from the land manager before placing a cache. There might be very valid reasons that the land manager does not want a cache in a particular spot - without asking you do not know. And as a consequence of the above item: If you are in a position to approve a cache, do not do so unless you are assured that the land manager has given approval. Blanket approval by some land managers may be possible but in other cases some specific correspondence/e-mail should be required. Thanks, Les.

I am now at 10%. Here is the reason why: Deleted a post where this user demanded that someone's thread be closed because the issue had been discussed before. It had been discussed before, but not for several months. User is questioning moderators' judgment. Yup, 10% for asking the moderator to apply the guidelines consistently...and for questioning his judgement. I get the feeling I'll be going up to 20%. Les.

I don't have anything new to say that I have not already said but I just wanted to post on this thread before it gets locked. Les.

There is an umbrella organization for all Conservation areas in Ontario and they do not have a policy on geocaches. If you want to place a geocache on conservation land, you should go to the local land manager and ask permission. Here is a portion of an e-mail I recieved from them. Conservation Ontario does not have a policy with regards to geocaches. I would suggest that you speak directly with the Conservation Authority of interest as to whether they have established any such policy. To find a particular conservation authority please visit Conservation Ontario's website at http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/profile/consareas.htm I don't know about federal parks. If and when I find out, I'll post the info here. Les.

Sorry. I thought it was a good idea. Les.

OK. Just kidding. But seriously, it sure seems that some members are pretty upset with what the moderators are doing. Like it or not this is the only real forum where geocachers can go. There are no alternatives and as such, perhaps the forum owners could try something to accomodate those here who feel that the current guidelines are too stringent or are too stringently applied. How about this for a suggestion: Put a special forum area way down below under "United Kingdom" and anyone who wants to post there without fear of offending the sensibilities of others can. Threads there can go off topic, arguements can get more vicious than a group of octarians at a tea social and the only moderation will be to remove actual offensive material. The first thread can be dedicated to how that is defined. That way the moderators will no longer have to justify their decisions and the innocents on the forum who would otherwise be scandalized can stay away. Call that section of the forum, "The Freedom Forum". It can be moderated by whomever wants the job. Les.

to repeat myself since you asked this same question on page one I will repost the answer: the following is a direct quote from the forum guidelines. Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator. Thats why the moderators care. they are following the guidelines. Do you intentionally post in a way that invites an angry response or is it just a accidental? I know it's difficult to get the nuances of communication when reading a quickly written post but it sure seems that you are deliberately trying to provoke. In anycase, my point was that the rules about off topic posts are not enforced in any sort of uniform way. You can keep quoting the rules but they are not really rules if they are not followed consistently. I just wanted to point out what a friendlier place this was when some off topic posts were permitted. Geoworms/J&M/Jomarac, thanks for the kind words. I know my stance on public land geocaches was going to be unpopular. The vast majority of people here have shown great grace in at least considering my arguements. Les.

Wow, this thread has got wildly off topic here but I've had a few laughs because of it. To (kind of) get back on topic. Where is the harm in getting off topic? I've noticed that it is mostly when people get off topic that things lighten up and there can't be anything wrong with that. Thanks, Les (And I am pretty sure that horse is about to devour that innocent little butterfly - the thing is vicious for sure.)

Just to keep the record straight there is nothing implied about that quote. You were anti-caching. No cacher would have suggested throwing away a cache for any reason. Maybe you have changed but when you stuck your head into the forums you were very much anti caching. If you changed thats great. Lapaglia, Thanks for "setting the record straight" there. I would not want anyone to think I misrepresented myself. But to set the record straight (at least my version of it, Lapaglia has a different version): I don't think my previous statement shows an "anti-geocache bias" just the "anti-geocache on public property bias" I admit to. I think if you re-read the entire thread you would see that my views on what I should do about a geocache on public property changed. I learned something because the thread existed for as long as it did. I might have learned more and maybe convinced someone else to change his/her position a bit if the thread had not been locked. That is kind of my whole point - no one got a chance to really finish the conversation. Les.

Nah. That one would have ended in a love in too. We would not have all agreed likely but at least we would have understood and respected each other at the end of it. These forums were apparently quite a free for all previously. I was not here then and don't see it now. Yup. One big happy family. Good nite John-boy.... Les.

All I can say is, thank goddness this thread was not closed. We would have all missed this little love in. I agree that my original posts implied an anti-geocache bias but I am not anti-geocaching just anti-geocaching on public land without consent. What has changed since starting to post is my desire to get into the sport. Previously, it was just something I would do eventually, now I am much more eager. And I actually did log my first find but under a different name. It was a while ago and I could not remember my username or password when I wanted to get back onto the forum. Les.

Joe, You're right. I need a GPS. Soon. I can't wait. The sport is amazing. (And for the record, I agree that my post would carry more weight if I had found some geocaches. It might not strictly follow the guidelines but that is the reality.) Many others are right. This is not a big deal in the whole scheme of things. It does not mean that it is not important as it relates to my and others activity on Groundspeak.com. UMC and Keystone. Do people really complain when you don't lock a thread? Do you get PMs that say, "I started to read that thread because I thought it was about GPS Features but then someone made a joke and another mentioned that his dog was sick. For the love of God close that thread and tell them to start new ones about jokes and sick dogs and they had better be GPS related!" I am dismayed about the thread that CO Admin locked since there was no reason for it and I and others were still getting something from it. I sent a very polite PM to him but I was ignored. And finally, who cares if a thread goes off topic? Who does it hurt? It may come back on topic (or not) but either way, it'll fall out of sight soon enough. All threads do. Les.

I had this great big long well thought out reply but somehow I deleted it before I posted it. Here is the short version: 1) Threads go off topic. So what? 2) Since, as an administrator, you have chosen to respond to a portion of my post, what about responding to the rest of it? Les.

I deliberately avoided reposting on the previous thread on this topic (since locked) but did get a PM from another forum member and thought some of you may be interested in my reply. If not, just ignore it. ___________________ I appreciate your take on this and, as I made abundantly clear when I started the thread, I know I don't have much history on this forum, expection of sympathy for my ideas or, as was pointed out to me, credibility. I am just disappointed that the discussion on an issue that is very important to me and others - geocaches on public lands - was terminated for no apparent reason and just at the point that a consensus may emerge. The only reason that I could see is that the moderator did not want us to talk about the issue anymore. I like it when people disagee with me - I learn things that way. Someone wrote on this forum recently, "I never learned anything from a man that agreed with me." and that is brilliant. My position on geocaching on public land changed dramatically because of my participation in that thread. It might have been modified more or others may have modified or changed their opinions. Now we'll never know. What a shame. I don't understand why, if some forum members want to discuss something, the moderators should decide if they can. Threads of no interest will die quickly. In one instance I read recently, some troll posted a really inflamatory topic and rather than get sucked in, numerous members simply ignored him and deliberately talked about something else - what a brilliant way to address this. (Of course the thread still got locked because the administrator did not want the title of that thread to remain near the top of the list - go figure. I find that odd, I don't know how you see it.) From what I have seen here, the rules seem to be: 1) Don't discuss anything that some administrator does not want you to discuss. It will only be tolerated for a very short time before the thread is locked. 2) If you are going to disagree make sure that there are at least 5 people actively posting in some sort of rotation or the administrator will indicate that thread should become an exchange of PMs and lock it. (Forget the fact that others may be reading the thread, learning something but do not feel the need to post or that others may join in at a later date.) 3) Threads that are not about geocaching are not permitted unless the administrators think it is OK - take a look at the Thanksgiving reciepe thread - it has absolutely nothing to do with geocaching but is going strong. There are other examples of this. (Not that I think off topic thread are necessarily bad and should be locked but, if this thread is permitted, why not others?) 4) Don't disagree with anyone in anything less than a very polite manner and even better, don't disagree at all since it is really difficult to follow the rules on how one is to disagree - they seem to shift depending on the whims of the administrator. 5) Don't insult anyone unless the person you are insulting is taking a position contrary to what the administrators want. On my first thread here, I was called an idiot without any reaction whatsoever from the administrators. Frankly, I don't care a bit that I was called an idiot - I can look after myself. I do care however that the application of the rules are not consistent. 6) Be carefull what you post. If the administrators do not like it, they will edit it (fair enough I guess in most circumstances - they should have that responsibility) but, in addition to editing it, they insert a editorial into your post which is unbelievably inappropriate in my view. Your recourse? Get your entire post deleted. There is no appeal that your original post what edited wrongly. I know that the administrators are volunteers and they are only human. It can not be an easy job and being criticized for how you do a job you volunteer for for the good of a whole group has got to suck. I sympathize with them on that count but I don't know why, because of that, I need to accept the things that they do that I do not agree with. As I originally stated when I started that thread, I post elsewhere on the net on other topics that interest me. No where else have I seen the kind of intervention I see here by the administrators. Les.

Thank you everyone and particularly BNolan for spending so much time detailing the things I should look for. I really appreciate the time you've all taken to educate me on this. I will probably go for a low end model and, as suggested, trade up if I need to in the future. If anyone else has any thoughts, I'd like to hear them. And I will check out the regional section to see if anyone locally will let me join a meeting. Les.

First of all, I am a newbie to this forum and the sum of my posts consist of arguing against geocaches on public land without the land managers consent and a question about the features I should look for in a GPS. So, as is obvious, I have little reason to expect my ideas about this topic will get a warm reception by some. Nonetheless, as a newbie, I have noticed on this forum an inordinate amount of intervention on the part of the administrators. They seem to, more so than other forums I have visited, control what the participants discuss and post. I admire them for their committment to the sport and what I assume is the earnestness with which they make their decisions but I am dismayed at the paternalistic attitude they demonstrate by forcing the participants here to limit his/her discussion to the narrow confines of what they feel is worth discussing. You may have no experience with this but in my lurking I have found many examples of threads locked and posts edited for what appear to be the personal whim of an administrator. In my first ever foray into this forum, the thread was closed - why? I am not sure really. Even I suggested that we were talking in circles but with a caveat that one of the posters had an idea that perhaps we could all agree on. Instead of an opportunity to hash it out, the thread was locked and now, unless I raise the topic again which I do not really want to do, I will never know if my thoughts (which were modified greatly by what I learned here) about geocaches on public land are similar to anyone else but one other person whom I agreed with on that thread. There are numerous other examples where specific posts are deleted or modified for reasons other than decorum and other threads that are locked for no apparent reason other than the administrator did not want to have the participants talking about it anymore. I am not sure why this would be so. Certainly not to save bandwidth. I can only guess that the administrators decide what is discussed and to what extent it is discussed. Is this their role? I understand deleting overtly offensive posts but otherwise, why should they decide what you discuss or post? If that is their job and you agree then by all means ignore me but for my part, I think it detracts from the free flow of ideas on what is otherwise an amazing community of people. Am I the only one that sees this as an issue? Are you not adults to decide what you think is worth discussing? Do you not, in some sense, own this forum by your participation? I do not want to get into any sort of arguement about this. Sure the administrators own the website and control it, but it exists for the benefit of the people who geocache. Why do they get to decide what is discussed? Enough said on my part (and likely too much). Again, if you think I am out of line then ignore me and this thread will fall off the front page in a hurry and will be forgotten (or deleted) and I will not bring it up again (if I am still permitted to post). Les.

Thanks for the reply and really that is the problem. I don't know enough about GPS units to know what is important to me now or may be important to me in the future. I was hoping for some help in getting started. As I said, I intend to use my GPS to do geocaching and as a back-up to a map and compass for wilderness travel. For just those two activities, I think I could use a very basic GPS. (tell me if I am wrong though). For wilderness travel, the accuracy would not have to be better than a few hundred yards but of course it would have to be much better for geocaching. Other than simply telling me about where I am and pointing me in the direction of a waypoint, what are GPS units capable of and why is that capability important? This will let me decide if that extra capability is important to me (or will be) and therefore if I should buy something other than the most basic unit. My fear is that I'll go out and get a basic GPS, start to use it and then realized that I should have spent more money to get some other feature that I would have found usefull. So, what other features are there are GPS units and what do they do? If I know that, then I can decide if the features may be usefull to me in the future and buy the right GPS unit now rather than regretting the purchase of a low-end unit. Thanks. Les.

So I am going to buy a GPS but want to avoid having to say to myself, "If I'd only thought that I'd need that feature in the future, I would have spent more money." So my question is: Is there some summary of the common features on GPS's, what they do, why they are important, why I would want to spend more money to get that feature? I'd like to spend as little as possible but will am also willing to spend what I have to to get the features that are important to me now but also may be important to me in the future. Initially of course, I'll just use the GPS for wilderness travel (as a back-up to map and compass) and, of course, to find geocaches. If someone could provide a link, I'd appreciate it. Les.

You know there are alternative views on this and good willed intelligent people will disagree with your right to put a cache on public land. Dismissing them out of hand as "power hungry wannabees" does not do your cause any favors. If you want to continue your right to put geocaches on public land then argue the facts and convince the decision makers that there is are better reasons to allow this than there are to ban it. Personally, I don't think you should be allowed to put caches on public land. So it really comes down to the fact that people with my opinion will argue one side, you the other and let the "power hungry wanabees" make an informed decision. In the meantime, what is wrong with virtual caches? Isn't this 95% of the fun without the hassle that getting permission to place it? Les.

First off I think a warning and a request to archive the cache are essential and the only courteous thing to do. Removing a cache without doing both would be a dis-service to everyone involved. I can also see getting the land managers specific instructions to remove the cache. That makes a lot of sense. I can also see leaving the geocache with the land manager - assuming he or she wants it. Does this make sense to everyone else? ------- The above is copy of a previous post I did, I screwed up when I quoted it and don't know how to fix it so I just had to copy and paste it. _______________ Hi everyone. Thanks for taking the time to think about this issue. I don't expect you all to agree with me but you may have noticed that I agreed with New England previously. Does anyone think New England's take on this is wrong? Forget about disagreeing with me. What do you think about New England's view on this? And to the kind person who is 97% sure that I am the same person who started this thread, let me assure you that I am not. I appreciate your generosity in coming up with an alternative explaination and it is mostly right. I have been waiting to get on the forum for a bit to raise this issue. When I signed in for the first time after the forums came back up this thread was on the top and it caught my eye. Since the tread was already active, I thought it appropriate to ask my questions here. And by the way, I too later looked up the meaning of the original poster's name and it is dispicable. (To save everyone else the trouble, it has strong racist meanings and the fact that the guys even knows this word gives me the creeps. I don't want to share a forum with someone like that - now you don't have to read what I and other have.) I guess you can still suspect that he and I are the same person. If you really think I am then ask the site managers to check mine and the original poster's IP address. I have posted here from two different locations but it would be the most amazing co-incidence if the original poster had the same IP. To the administrator, if anyone asks, please provide this info - not my location but just if the IPs are the same or indeed are from the same part of the world. I don't want to go around in circles on this issue and, unless you want to, there is no need to insult me. How about you debate New England's suggestion? Of course, if you really want, I'd be happy to respond to every post that asks me a specific question but I get the sense that I am just making people angry and I don't see it getting better by responding. I'd much rather stick to the issue but again, if you really see the need, ask and I'll respond. Les. Les.

Once again, I ask you. What are you basing these comments on? These are very specific complaints. All I ask is that you give us some specific examples. If you can't, and only if you can't, then your argument holds no water, this thread should be closed and your access to this site should no longer be allowed. Do we have a deal? J&M. I did not say any of the things you quote me as saying except the "natural beauty" one. Others, not me, said the rest. I tried to explain my natural beauty comment above. The moderators can ban me from the forum and close this thread but I don't see any reason to. I am not being rude or insulting (although I have been insulted.) Why should I be banned or why should the thread be locked? And, finally, I thought I was very clear. I have no problem with geocaching if it is done with permission. In fact, I think it is amazing. Les.

Once again... Can you cite a specific instance where you feel a geocache takes away from the natural beauty of the land? What are you basing that statement on? Hi J&M. Sorry for not responding to this specific question before. I missed it amongst all the rest of the comments. And I agree, my statement is not as clear as I intended. Here is what I meant by it: There are many places that are set aside by governments (public lands) and the goal of those governments is to maintain, as much as practical, an undisturbed natural state - National Parks, the BWCA etc. (I know there are exceptions even in these areas.) Since these areas are meant to be as undisturbed as possible or at least undisturbed except in accordance with the wishes of the land managers, any geocache in those areas takes away from the "natural beauty" of the area. Sure, if I am lucky, I'll come across a geocache accidentally but just having these placed throughout an otherwise pristine area makes them less pristine. Just because I can't see it or find it easily does not mean that a geocache has not detracted from the "natural beauty" of an area. Of course some public lands are more pristine than others but, as the goal of public lands is to protect them from the evidence of people (again, except as decided by the land manager) then any geocache detracts from that goal. I'll tell you the reason that this is an issue for me - This past summer I was on in a public wilderness park. Although heavily used, it was spotlessly clean. Not one bit of garbage anywhere and the only evidence of human use was a marked trail set up by the land managers. I met a group of people there who were there specifically to place a geocache. Their reasons for doing so were admirable. They wanted to give people a reason to visit an amazing piece of the Earth. Afterwards, I thought about it. The land managers have a specific policy against geocaches on the land and now there is some bit of man-made trash hidden there somewhere. Now, this formerly perfectly preserved piece of the world is less perfectly preserved. (Sorry for the word "trash", I know this will raise the ire of some but I can't think of an alternative that describes it). Having realized that a geocache is definitely not appropriate in some circumstances, it now seems obvious (to me at least, I am not asking you to agree with me) that geocaches anywhere on public lands without the land managers permission detract from the natural beauty of the lands we want to protect. I hope that answers your quesiton. Les.