seneca

I agree. I also agree. Geocaching is not solitaire. It is a community game. Anything that enhances the sense of community among geocachers will enhance geocaching. The culture and conventions within any community are developed by exchanging and discussing ideas and issues. Ideally, this is what the forums should achieve.

I think somebody already made the statement, "Why hunt a geocache when you could just go for a hike?", technology is fun. O.K. I get your point. I take it you are not suggesting "a better mousetrap", but rather a different type of caching game using a different technology, where instead of going on a search to a preplanned destination, we use technology to go out on a "prowl" looking for prey. I guess I can see some attraction in that.

Why would I want to drive down the highway waiting for my receiver to receive some cache co-ordinates, when I can get thousands of them from the internet? I am sure that there are other technologies that we could use to get cache coordinates, but I can't imagine any that would be as effective as a well designed website. A good geocaching site (like this one) is also much more than just a place to obtain co-ordinates.

I note that the “guidelines” as to what can be left in a cache, appear only to relate to the approval of newly placed caches (original contents) as those restrictions only appear in the "Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines" section. There is a separate section in the guide called Finding your First Cache, and it simply says “take an item and leave an item”. I take this to mean that Geocaching.com does not even pretend to regulate what trade items are left, and leave that up to our own common sense (and laws/regulations already in place). In most cases, leaving a Leatherman Tool as a trade, will not defy common sense.

This is the worst story about geoacahing I have ever read. Although there were a few “positives” relating to the conduct of geocachers, the message the story conveys is that Geocaching is becoming a significant ecological and safety problem for public lands. That message was unsupported by any facts. What a load of crap.

I have read this several times and it makes no sense to me. Land managers don't determine if specific permission is required for a particular activity. If I'm driving down the street and a jerk of a police officer pulls me over, and takes my license away, based on an eroneous presumption that my license was invalid, does that mean that I never had permission to drive? Of course not. If thirty people are quietly enjoying a picnic in a park, and the land manager throws them out because he doesn't like the length of their hair (and this has been done) does that mean that they never had permission to use the park in the first place? No way. The only way what you have said can make sense, is to define "permission" as the positive endorsement of a land manager who has the absolute discretion and authority to to arbitrarily give and deny such endorsement, based on any policy which he may himself decide upon. I am unaware of any public official, in any capacity, in a democracy who is armed with such powers.

You are making the assumption that permission is always required. It ain't. Only for the sake of this discussion. Then the discussion is purely hypothetical. I will however answer hypothetically: you should simply ask for permission as required, and ignore the fact that others have decided to break the law. Your only other choice would be to avoid even trying to get permission to place a cache on the land in question, which would be most unfair, if you felt compelled to do so only because someone else decided to break the law. I am sure glad that your question is purely hypothetical, and does not reflect reality. An aside: If permission were not required, and you went ahead and sought it anyways, and did a real lousy (or unsuccessful) job in explaining geocaching, resulting in the land manager getting upset and going out and physically pulling all of the other caches, I would sure be angry if I were one of those cache owners!

Like the land manager, as a free agent I can also choose to interpret a law anyway I feel like and act accordingly. However, if I am wrong, there will be consequences. The same applies to the land manager who oversteps his authority (unless we choose to act like bleating sheep). I do not disagree with what you have said, and the negative consequences of not having land managers onside from the beginning, even if they are wrong. But having a clear understanding whether or not what you are doing is lawful, is very important and will definitely impact on the way that one deals with the local authorities. Communications with a land authority that presupposes that permission is legally required, or that drips with uncertainty as to whether or not what you are doing is lawful, is in my opinion a very very weak way to deal with authorities when trying to get them to develop a geocaching policy. A much better approach would be one where we are confident that what we are doing is lawful, and allowed without specific permision, and that we are approaching the land manager in a manner of mutual respect, to ensure: that our members, and the land manager feel comfortable with geocaching; that there are no issues that need to be addressed; and, that the activities of our members do not cause any damage to the land. I have seen some great examples posted to these forums where such an approach has been successful. I am afraid that a number of our members, do not feel confident that what they are doing is completely legal, and requires no need for permission (or apology). I am hopeful that that attitude does not become widespread among us, as it will be very damaging to our sport.

Wouldn't you need a tenth of a mile of rope to meet guidelines? O.K., I'll bite. This cache would be a multi-cache, (finding the first 2 boxes enables you find the final cache) and there is no rule as to minimum distance between legs of a multi.

So long as you promise to hold your deep breath until then. (Just kidding) Well said, and indeed needed. I sincerely think the issues raised in this thread and others like it are important, and the way we approach them now will impact on geocaching in the future.

At the End of Your Rope Cache This is an idea I had a long time ago, but was never sure if it would work very well. Feel free to use it (but let me know if it works). Two boxes are each securely affixed (tied to an object, or spiked into the ground) at different locations, about 150- 175 feet apart from each other. Finding the first, will give you the clue/co-ordinates to find the second. Each box contains 100 feet of rope, with one end affixed to the box and the other end affixed to a laminated tag (the laminated tags would have some instructions on it) . The actual cache location is at one of two possible locations, being the locations where the two tags meet when the ropes are pulled out straight. This might be particularly interesting /difficult if there were lots of other trees around to get in the way. The instructions printed on the tags, ask that the ropes be put neatly back in their boxes after the cache is found.

Bons, don't go. I (and others I am sure) have appreciated your contribution to this discussion. You are the perfect forum poster - not afraid to take a controversial position, while at the same time knowing how to carry on a polite and civil discussion. Here's a quote I have taken from one of your posts: " It's something for sheep to be scared of but no one who values freedom should be cowed into obeying an unjust law." Ditto goes for being cowed into leaving a forum discussion because of the bullying tactics of one person. Rethink it Bons - I don't think leaving is your style. I think the appropriate measure would be to report to TPTB the perpetrator of the behaviour, particularly any inappropriate private e-mails.

Woodsters, you have nailed it. That is the question that Geoacachers should be asking. Like Bons said, the answer is likely a combination of diplomacy and civil disobedience (and civil disobedience does not necessarily mean breaking a bad law - it can mean simply doing what you are lawfully entitled to do, notwithstanding that a public official is telling you not to). Geocaching is lawful. Believe it. If we don't believe that, then as a law abiding citizens, we should all stop now. Getting back to the issue of permission: Public officials often have the authority not to enforce particular laws, but they rarely have the authority to "permit" you to break a law. If leaving a cache in a park was contrary to some lawful regulation prohibiting "abandoning property" or "littering", then it would be useless to ask for "permission" because the park authority would not be able to give it.

That's just not the way things work. You, in my opinion, are wrong. That is the way things work (at least in Canada - if an American lawyer out there provides an opinion that the US constitution provides for less freedom that the Canadian Constitution, and allows freedoms to be taken away by public officials in the discretionary, so called "common sense" manner you have suggested, then I may stand to be corrected). For now, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

So if there is a policy against leaving personal property behind, then placing a geocache is illegal? Correct? George Your conclusion is not logical. "if there is no policy against geocaching, then it is legal" does not mean that "if there is policy against geocaching, then it is illegal". Also, a law that simply prohibits "leaving personal property behind" (and I do not recall any regulation reproduced in these forums that is worded in that precise manner) would very likely not apply to Geocaching. When a freedom is restricted by law (in Canada anyways, which I presume is no more a free country than the US) then it must be done in a clear and unambiguous manner. That is why regulations can get to be so long worded, especially when applying to prohibiting activities. It is very difficult (almost impossible) to lawfully prohibit specific activities, using only general terms. The arguments that I have seen to the effect "you could arguably say that geocaching is prohibited under this section of reg. such'n such.... littering - abandonment - etc...." in my opinion would fail. The mere fact that an argument has to be made, suggests that the regulation is not clear and free from ambiguity. If there was a law in a park that said "leaving personal property behind is prohibited", then arguably it would be unlawful to leave a towel on the beach while you went to the restroom. Such argument, which I am sure could be forcefully made by a number of persons who have posted to these forums, would of course fail. I have reviewed the laws and regulations that apply to British Columbia parks, and I am pleased to say that I have not found any that prohibit Geocaching! edit:spelling

Like we have with National Parks? (friendly sarcasm intended )

I wasn't talking about the nutbars out there who have overdosed on granola. The concern that I raised was an attitude that I am sensing from some geoacahers that environmentally, maybe we do have something to apologize for, and that what we are doing is catching up with us. I very sincerely believe that environmentally, we are on very firm ground, and that we should stand up straight and proud in this regard, and always represent ourselves in that way. Here's an interesting calculation: If the average geocache has a footprint of 6 inches by 6 inches, the amount of land covered by over 200,000 out-of-view caches is smaller than the size of a typical playing field! That playing field was likely made by totally decimating a forest. So long as geocachers respect the land they walk on, (which should be required of any person entering public lands) that tiny, harmless footprint is the only impact that we are having on the land. In fact, the time that we spend geoaching, is probably taking away from the time that we might otherwise be involved in an activity that actually does damage to the environment.

It matters a little bit. One reason why the "edit" note appears, is so that it can alert us to the possibility that the original poster may have, in reaction to subsequent responses to his post, changed what he/she initially had posted . This to me is innappropriate (kind of misleading) and is a good reason for having the edit note. However, if one changes their post for simple spelling/gramatical reasons, or before anyone else has responded (changes that are often made within the first few minutes of posting) then one doesn't want other forum members to think that they made the change for some innappropriate (misleading) reason. In the old forums, after the fifteen minute grace period passed, I would usually only edit a post for spelling/grammar and often add a little note like "edit for spelling only". I do agree, it is no big deal, and the new preview option is great. (I have also installed a spell checker on my browser) NOTE: Edit was made in response to subsequent post. I changed the word "dishonest" to, "misleading"

Where is this environmental backlash/concern that is being talked of? I have not seen or heard of any statements by credible environmentalists to the effect that geocaching is detrimental to the environment. There are so many truly horrific things that humans do to their environment, that I seriously doubt that a genuine environmentalist would waste their valuable time and energy raising any concern over anything as relatively benign as geocaching. I may be wrong - if genuine environmental concerns have been raised regarding geocaching please let me know, but in the meantime I do not think it is helpful to simply presume that there is growing opposition to Geocaching by environmentalists.

But the guy who wrote the letter that started this thread already believes we're outlaws. Of course this is a good idea, but I don’t think it helps the image of Geocaching if we feel compelled to make a great big slurping sound while doing this. The approach you suggested will not work with the likes of the guy who wrote the letter. From the complete lack of any environmental or wildlife protection concern raised in that letter, it is clear that this enforcer does not have conservation as part of his agenda. What good will it do to try to convince him that Geoacaching is an activity that will enhance the public use of wildlife reserves, without any negative impact. He is the one who has drawn the line in the sand, and we are on the other side of that line (at least I am). If we don't work against him, then our only other choice is to accept that another area of public lands is out of bounds, in the same way we so willingly (and sheepishly) did with NPS lands, which by the way is still out of bounds. (I have not heard of any progress having been made on that front).

Yeah shhhhhh We wouldn't want our sport to get lumped in with dubious activities such as that of an elderly couple who grow flowers their backyard greenhouse. FWS guys, you are all really cool. (I hope that helps the cause).

I too miss that feature. I know that the new forums do allow us to preview the post, but invariably I find out in the first 5 to 10 minutes that I have made some minor error and change it.

Whether you agree or disagree, for a long time TPTB wanted discussions in the previously called “General” forum to be restricted to Geocaching. They also wanted discussions regarding the web site and its policies, restricted to the forum previously called “Geocaching.com”. Both of these issues resulted in considerable need for interference by the moderators. I’m surprised that it took them so long to simply change the titles of the forums to more accurately reflect the expected topics for discussion. Making things clear, and unambiguous is the key to communication, and reduces the need for interference by moderators.

What does this discussion have to do with Geocaching? Shouldn't it be moved to the newly named Geocaching.com Web Site forum?

I thought they did that by just sticking pins on a map showing all the donut shop locations.