seneca

That's an interesting topic for an entirely different forum discussion which could be called: "Laws and Regulations that arguably prohibit geocaching".

I have no problem with opening up dialogue with land managers so that they don’t have any misconceptions about what geoaching is. Such communication should of course emphasize the benign, environmental friendly nature of geocaching. It should state how our members in general are the type of park guests any ranger would love to have. It would ask that they be considerate of our member’s property if they happen to come across it. But if you go to the first post of this thread (please, please reread it), you will see that this is not what this topic is about. This topic is not about whether or not asking for permission gives a strategic political advantage when promoting geoacaching. It is about freedom. Freedom to engage in activities not prohibited by law. Freedom to geocache. It simply points out that, unless specifically prohibited by valid laws, we are free to engage in this activity on public lands and we are not required to ask permission. If you take issue with that, or think that it sounds naive, romantically sentimental or simply sucky then say so. In my opinion, if we do not have a strong belief that this is an activity that we have the right to do, then we will be at a very distinct disadvantage when dealing with attacks of small-minded persons who would try to stop us.

I have not seen one definition of litter, dictionary, legal, or regulative mumbo jumbo, posted in this discussion or others, which would include a properly placed geocache. None. Nada. Not one. Nil. I know what a geocache is: IT IS NOT LITTER. I have read the legal defintions of litter and IT IS NOT GEOCACHE. Statutes are interpreted by courts in a way that makes sense - and just as it would never make sense to find that a beach towel placed on a beach for a purpose is litter, it would never make sense to find that a geocache placed in a stump for a purpose is litter. You may find some power-tripping gungho type with less than average IQ who might try to stuff a geocache into some legal definition of litter but he will fail. Just like pigs are not cows, Geocaches are not litter by any definition.

I've been described as a right-wing, left-leaning, conserberal. But I really don’t like labels.

Hey, we can resolve two contentious issues at once! Fill all of our caches with religious tracts!

I get the same feeling you do. Some geocachers appear to have bought into the notion that there is something harmful with a geocache. As I have said earlier, I see a typical hidden geocache as something completely devoid of hurtful qualities. It is not unsightly. It is not hazardous to the environment. It will not cause injury. It is certainly not doing any more harm than it would be if someone moved it to a landfill or incinerated it. As human activity goes, hiding a geocache is benign. The only reasonable issue that a land manager could have with a hidden cache, is that if I tell geocachers about its location, they might come - but I have the right to communicate a location - and since the land is accessible to the public, geocachers have the right to come. It doesn’t appear that anyone is taking issue with that (I hope). I do not even think about asking permission to engage in a benign activity, unless the government has passed a clear, unambiguous law that specifically requires me to do so. (I note that the absurd sounding NC State Law on Littering defines "can" and "container" as litter - this would surely be interpreted as single use discarded "cans" or "containers" otherwise they would be breaking their own littering laws by placing garbage "cans" in their parks)

This has nothing to do with First Amendment rights but it does have a lot to do with the value that I attach to freedom of speech. Of course the owner of a private setting has the ability (and right) to control his guest’s speech, particularly if such guests want to remain on his property. However, even in a private setting, I very much value being allowed to talk as freely as reasonably possible. If I do not think that the owner respects my desire to talk freely, I have two choices: 1. Bring my concern to his attention, as many here have done, and hope that the policy will change (this is what all of these “closed topic” discussions are about) , or 2. Go somewhere else. So far, I have chosen option number one. At some point in time, people will begin to choose option number 2.

The topic was relevant to geocaching in that it was a discussion about Geocaching.com forum policy. It should have simply been moved to the Geocaching.com forum instead of being locked. It is certainly difficult to have the open forum discussion that is being advocated, without being able to discuss forum policy.

Lock the Topic (to tune of Hark the Herald) Lock the topic admins shout Sorry but you’ll get kicked out! Peace on forums is what they seek It might be better not to speak Warnings warnings getting higher Complaints making this place dire With the admin host prolaim This thread’s going down the drain Lock the topic admins said One more minute and I'll kill this thread

Its a starting place anyways. If they attach a bunch of replacement parts to it then the Grand Cherokee will be as good as new.

The numbers mean little to me, but I do have a very modest personal goal of one cache per week. I set this goal shortly after I started caching in December 2001. I have 102 caches which is right on my goal. I find that this simple goal becomes a little reminder for me to make time to cache. Once in awhile I find that I get a little behind my average, and then it seem easier to justify to myself to get out and go look for a cache, even though I have a million other things to do.

Briansnat, you have magnificently stated in 17 words, the sentiment I have spent many paragraphs trying to say. Thank you. The sad part is, I have a feeling that there are quite a few on these boards who won't understand the significance of what you have said.

Like Criminal, I have never asked for permission, in that all of the caches I have hidden are on publicly accessible lands, where geoacaching is not prohibited and (in my opinion) permission is not required. I do however think the only valid reason for a land manager to prohibit the placement of a typical cache, is that for some reason general public access to the land is restricted/prohibited. Any other reason, would, in my opinion, be petty and meanspirited. I was recently searching for a cache in a bird sanctuary on a regional park. The sanctuary had strict rules posted about staying on the designated paths in order to protect wildlife habitat. (I presume that the rules were reasonably required). The cache was appropriately hidden at the edge of a path. If I was inclined to hide a cache off the path, I would certainly seek permission first, and fully expect that it would be denied, and I would not consider such denial unreasonable.

How does a geocache destroy environmental fragile areas? If visiting the area will cause environmental damage, then the area will likely be (or should be) off bounds to everybody, including bird-watchers, hikers, mountain bikers etc... Of the 102 caches that I have found, not one single one of them comes anywhere close to causing any environmental damage whatsoever. Geocaching, done properly, is a lawful, environmentally harmless activity. Taking a motor boat on a lake (a fairly environmentally acceptable activity) , has far more potential for damage, than putting a tupperware container in an old stump. Why do so many people on this site buy into the argument that geocaching is somehow harmful and accordingly believe that it should not be done on public lands unless permission is granted? (and I have no problem with communicating in a proactive or reactive manner with land managers about any concerns that they may have, however I do not believe that's what this discussion is about)

You have just made an excellent argument justifying the wholesale removal of all geocaches by anyone who for any reason concludes that they are "geolitter". If you do not support the concept that geocaches are private property, then anyone is legally (and depending on their own set of morals) morally justified in removing them. You are treading very close to kicking out one of the main underpinnings of geocaching.

With the owners permission, I hope. (otherwise the removers wouldn't be "volunteers", they would be thieves)

container + notebook + location = geocache Lameness in is the eye of the beholder

Anybody who can’t see the difference between storing snow tires in a park gazebo, and discreetly hiding a tupperware box in a tree stump has a real problem as far as I’m concerned. Now if I was planning on making a cache from a 10 cubic yard dumpster and hiding it in a park playground, then I concede that getting permission might be a good idea. A typical hidden geocache is as innocuous, and harmless as you can get, and I have never heard of one causing any damage to land. I have heard some stories about people causing damage while looking for a geocache, but that can be said of virtually any activity where individuals entering land do not treat it with respect. I can imagine the possibility of some jerk bird-watchers causing damage by trampling down bushes, stealing eggs from nests for collections, cutting down trees to get a better view etc... Now of course, no decent, respectful bird-watcher would ever be guilty of such boorish behaviour, but then again, no decent geocacher would be either. Geocaches and geocaching is harmless. Nobody should ever require permission to engage in a harmless activity on public land, accessible to the general public.

Its a good idea. I think it could be an enjoyable read, and add a little to the comradery of geocaching. It might well offset some of the more negative forum discussions. With 32 forums (some of which rarely get posts) I don't think one more would hurt.

Based on the question and the above responses, I think we need a link to the gc.com home page from forums pages THAT IS A LITTLE MORE PROMINENT! (I could't find it at first either)

But Criminal, you must admit that in some cases, it might be the polite thing to do.

Land managers removing caches on the lands they manage is a different issue. That problem may have possibly been avoided by asking for permission in the first place - or on the other hand it might actually have been caused/triggered because someone asked for permission, and thereby tacitly acknowledging that it might be a problem for some land managers. The negotiated manner in which you convinced land managers to leave caches alone was obviously successful and commendable.

If you were referring to my post, I did not say this. Much of my conduct is regulated by many laws, most of which I respect, and all of which I abide by. Democratically passed laws, pursuant to the constitution of a free country, are a reasonable and necessary restriction on certain freedoms. ??? The topic is about freedom - specifically freedom to go Geoaching. (I just read the entire first post again to make sure). Where did you get the notion that I plan to, or am likely to act in an irresponsible manner, to the detriment of other geocachers? Now that's off-topic, but if you are interested I suggest that you look at my posts on topics that deal with responsible Geocaching. I do however believe that Criminal made some very good points on how acting in a manner that presupposes we do not have the freedom to Geocache, is the most likely way that we will lose our freedom to do so.

You fall into the first category of persons that Criminal referred to: You accept that you are not free, and you will do nothing without approval. The "Park officials/legislators" that you refer to have no right to give "blanket approval". The concept of a free society is that approval to do as you wish is a given right (strongly supported by your wonderful constitution). Specific aspects of that freedom can then be regulated away, after due process, when it can be demonstrably shown that it is in the public good to do so. Criminal (and I) take the position that we are free to enter and use public lands so long as specific prohibitions have not been rightfully enacted. On most public lands I cannot imagine any justifiable reason, in a free country, to prohibit playing hide 'n go seek with tupperware. This is very different than legislating against using public lands for the "drug hideouts, cache bombs, weapons store, or a lure for victims" that you referred to. I don't need any park official to "give" me a "free pass". So long as I live in (or visit) a free country, I have one.

Sorry Jeremy, but I find it hard to believe that you could take any land manager seriously who goes out of his way to telephone you and rant because he found a tupperware container on the lands he manages. I would treat him like a troll on these forums. Humor him for a bit, and then quietly hang-up. Don’t encourage him by taking him seriously. You are dealing with an over-the-top, power-tripping attitude that should be ignored.