Renegade Knight

Well heck. That can be summed up in the log type. Found it. Did not Find. Everthing else is gravy. Don't suck the fun out of logs. They are hard enough to write as they are.

The event was authorized by virtue of being approved (that's from your GC number). The event page itself is a solicitation by the defintion of the word. "Come visit my event!". Cache pages are solicitation to find a cache. They are their own exceptions. The claim then falls to "unauthorized advertizing for the event" However the event isn't the problem the soliciation isn't the problem and the authorization for the event isn't the problem. All have the official GC.com thumbs up. The sole problem is someone doesn't want it in your log. I'd simply tell them. "Thank you so very much for your request. Alas this is a hobby and since I won't enjoy changing my logs, I'm not interested in doing so. If you wish to edit or even delete my logs please don't push this task onto a volunteer it would be ever so much better of someone was getting paid for the nuance that is being enforced here. Good luck. Good speed." You can change the wording to suit your own taste. If your numbers are critically important to you. Be ready to relog with "TFTC". Or just cave and relog with a story about the email and being forced to relog and copy and paste it everwhere.

Source? A couple of years ago I heard they were looking for a way to replace the ammo cans. Preferably with something consumed in the process of using the ammo. The goal being no surplus to deal with. I have not head if this moved beyond the pipe dream stage. I've also hears (rumor) that they were looking at plastic wrap type packaging. The only sure thing is they are looking at options. As for the OP the guy he talked to was smoking crack. Even if they did ban ammo cans they could not automatly have everone destroy the ones they have short of an "exchange program". Where they pay us some pittance to rid the world of these vile and evil things that we all like so much.

That would be a great way to generate a score. Urbanites could find 500 caches and have a smaller score than the guy who drove 1000 miles. It wold be yet another way to skin the stats cat and have some fun.

First. Keep in mind I don't like multi caches. However I think they have a place in this activity. 5 finds for 5 legs is nothing more than 5 individual caches and not a multi. So if the cache owner wanted you to have 5 finds they would have set up 5 caches. That said, I do think there is some room for each "leg" of the multi to have an independant log. The site needs to track the legs anyway. Call them legs. That way you may get 1 Multi Find but 4 legs along the way. Or if you have my luck, a lot of legs but no multi finds. Your cache stats may then be. 200 Regular 3 Multi 470 Legs. You could do the same thing for event caches. 200 Regular. 3 Multi 470 Legs 1 Event 1093490280 Event Only Caches. 1 Event Pocket Cache.

Deciding that history is an intrepretation and picking and choosing the right vs. wrong intrepretations is an agenda in itself and has no place in the review. It's only a call to action of some kind that creates an agenda that crosses the "no agenda" rule.

Our local cache maggot caught wind of a thread were such things were being posed. He posted that he carried a gun and implied that perhaps we should be prepared for someone who was prepaired. His angle was "if you are ready to commit harm for your cache be ready to die for your cache." Of course I read it the other way. He's willing to forwarn people that he's out there ready to kill and that he's wiling to die for his maggotry. He actually doesn't understand that his maggotry relies on our good will and the moment he looses that with the right cacher the price he will pay is pretty high because of the very threat he's made to ensure the good will continues (via fear I guess).

This has been my (limited) experience on a more serious crime. After reading this thread, talking to our own local attorney, and making a case in many other threads about what a cache is. I'm satified that a cache is personal property. What I realized last night though was that the other side of the fence is what's confusing folks. The other side of the fence being how a person in various situations may interact with the cache and be held accountable differently depending on circumstances. A cache remains personal property in all cases, but when a person thought it was litter is one outcome. If they knowingly stole it knownig full well that it's owned, that's another and so on. It's interesting and I think a lot of our English Common law roots come into play on this side of the fence.

You have a complex subject. Wars are fought by the common man. There are hero's on all sides of the war who saved the lives of their fellow soldiers typically by killing the opposing forces who are doing there best to kill them (and thereby save their own skins and fellow soldiers). Collateral damage (killing nurses hiding in a cave) is unavoidable, regretful, and will haunt forever the person who did it and yet changes nothing that they were non combatants and none of that changes that almost to a man (certain Teir 1 forces excepted) the soldiers fighting would rather be home mowing the lawn, or complaining about the neighbors dog. War is an ugly brutal business. Even the side that has the higher moral ground will commit ugly acts. The story of war, from all sides and every angle is worth telling. We all, and especially our leaders need to know the price that will be paid. That price needs to be felt. It needs to bring tears to their eyes as they vote to go to war, or tears to the president as he commits us to a "Police action" that can't be differentiated from war. That said, there is a time for war and when it comes, whether we like it or not, we need to fight to win and we need to do what it takes to get it over with as soon as possible and it's going to be ugly, and brutal and scar people forever. A cache telling the story of a hero is fine. That you are not comfortable with it is fine. That you don't like war is good. Never, ever let your distaste for war distract you from recognizing when the time comes and helping with the ugly brutal business that it is. The time to fret about war, and try to keep the peace is before hostility breaks out and we should all be pushing for peace at all times, in every way. Just not during a war. That's when there are winners and losers and the winner merely loses less. That less is worth a lot. A cache telling the story of the nurses is also fine. It should even exist near the hero who may have killed them.

I don't understand your question. Most abandoned property laws that I've read apply to government agencies ( while they answer to us, they have the authority, not us) for their use in adminstering public lands. It's lets them clean up all the junk that gets left behind. Some do apply to individuals. I have a Bronco on some land that some doof abandoned. The Bronco is from Utah. Idaho lets me file an abandoned vechicle claim and if I spend a lot of time and paperwork on it I can claim the broken bronco as my own. Then get rid of it. That it's a Utah bronco probably complicates it. My solution will be to haul this thing to the road and leave it where a government authority will deal with it. If Wall Mart cleaned up their lot and tossed a cache as a result you have a couple of things brought up in the thread. If walmart reasonably though it was litter and tossed it. No harm no foul. If walmart knew it was a cache and posted a log for the owner to come get it or they would toss it in a week or two. No harm no fowl. If Walmart gave permission for it and threw it away anyway? Good question. If Cache Maggot steals it. They aren't the owner, they aren't the land owner, and they know they are stealing it. This is what's cut and dry to me.

I would want to see this to believe it. I have a 300 and the visiblity in sunlight is bad. You have to have it a just the right angle to make it tolerable. The backlight (which is what you get with DC power) makes it tolerable at something other than 'the right angle". Tolerable in the perfect circumstances is far short of good. So I would say, go find one, take it outisde (drag the sales staff with you if you have too) and see how it compares to a 60C. If it's as good as the 60 they have greatly improved the screen. If you can see it with the backlight off but not quite as good as the 60, but you don't have to shift it to the 'perfect angle' that's also an improvment.

Me neither. I'm actually far more likely to find an active wasp next using a fence cap, or the fence pole. However I've found exactly enough of these caches to where it's an obvious thing to check, and jump back in the even of wasps.

It's a sensable answer from Groundspeak.

Do you think our reviewers have the time to cross check every cache we submit against Open Caching, Terra caching, NaviCache and now this corporate site? Why should Theta bow to Groundspeak if we don't consider other listing sites ourselves? That would take a simple agreement with the other sites. Since each database is essentially waypoints and hte GPX format is open, this isn't rocket sience. The hard part is the agreement that would make it easy. They arleady check the database for close GC.com caches. Checking a database for close caches isn't any harder if that database has all the caches in it.

Agreed. As an owner you can factor finder behavior into the hide. As a finder, if it's looking like a needle in a haystack, I move on. That doesn't interst me. A clever hide does. Sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference. Last weekend I went for 5 caches and found 1. Lots of needles out there. When the fun stops, I move on.

They never were litter. Not by the letter of the law, not by the spirit and intent of the law. The argumetns otherwise were nothing but smoke with no grounds to stand on. (let alone common sense). When it comes to abandoned property they can meet the letter of the law,but they don't meet the spirit and intent. Further it's the land manager who invokes the law. Not Joe Maggot. You don't get to walk into a campground and steal a tent. The forest service hower can invoke the abandoned property rules and law and deal with the tent. Even when it's 'abandoned' you can't steal it as now it's forest service property. I'd love to see this go to trial and I'd love to see the issues laid to rest. I'd be happy to contribute to the prosecution. If the maggot was wise he'd cop a plea. Alas this maggot has merely proven they are smart. How wise has yet to be determined.

Yes, it's a play on words, and perfect for the spot. Reading the post above. It remains perfect as the play on words is all about the location (and not the faith) and nothing more.

What we do varies. We used to plan a route and that worked out fairly well. Last time we went we chose a spot we wanted to cache in and then saw what was closest. Whatever fits your style.

They actually don't need much effort at all. Few visitors in a more relaxing environment with hardier containers seems to be a good fit. The log book won't get filled short of several years. The trade goods can do what they will. If after several years it should happen that you need some help maintaining something. You can post a note to the cache page at that time, ask in your regional forums, or take the time you need to plan the hike. You don't need to say anthing at all in the cache page. When others in this thread have been unable to maintain their own caches they have thought nothing of asking for the help they needed when they needed it.

Caches are personal property. They can be confused with litter by folks who don't know better. I've addressed it.

I'm an engineer. That fact does a really good job of removing me from any jury pool. I probably would be "that guy". Heck half my job is dealing with an organization full of "those guys". When I tell you Engineers are a PITA, trust me on that. Take a look at our arrested maggots background. No suprises there.

The reasonableness of your actions in what you do upon finding tupperware, is different from ownership. In all cases that cache is owned and is personal property. Joe Boyscout may find a cache and toss it earning a handy CITO badge. Good for him. His judgment was incorrect but not unreasonable. Erickson made a good point about this angle. Joe Maggot, using geocaching.com to find 600 caches and steal them knowing full well they were owned (the owner is on each cache listing) is stealing. His judgment is quite accurate and entirly unreasonable. They are caches, they are taking them. In both cases the cache is personal property. On the one hand the person can make a reasonable claim that "they didn't know, nor did they have any reason to know" it wasn't a mouldy lunch. On the other they can't, they knew the entire time they were stealing.

An interesting thing about the law. We are all subject to it. We are all expected to know it, understand it, and toe the line. Ignorance is no excuse. The very legal concept of a reasonable person ties into the common citizen. We absolutly should be discussing, debating, and coming to an understanding. We even have the power of jury nullification which can and should be used when a law has passed what is reasonable.

I have not looked up fish and game laws, but I assume that the agency has legal authorization to place a field instrument in particular locations. I would be upset if they came into my office and put one there. On the other hand, I am not sure there is a claim of ownership (for the purposes of NY's larceny statute) over every cache that has ever been placed. in that state. Under NY law, an owner is one with the right to possession. Does placing a cache wherever you want automatically give you that right under the law? Some jurisdictions have specifically described unauthorized geocaches as both litter and abandoned property, which to my mind does not equate with a right of possesion. Rome does not address the issue. Even if there is ownership for larceny purposes, some states allow a claim of right defense if the accused mistakenly believes he has the legal right to remove the property - as a person might do coming across abandoned property. I don't practice in NY so I do not know how far the defense goes in that state. I tend to be wary of blanket statements, particularly when there is a lot I do not know about the facts that might be at issue. And Mr Repak's case is somewhat unique (thankfully). But if someone removes a lamp post hide from a mall parking lot where permission has never been obtained I don't think that it amounts to larceny. If a hiker comes across a geocache that has been broken and scattered about and takes it to the nearest trash bin - keeping the golf ball for himself - I don't think of it as larceny. In the end, there is a fair amount of room to argue about where Repak stands on the scale. Over the years I have disagreed with a number of prosecutors and (sadly) even a fair number of judges. I would have to know a lot more about the particular cache and do a lot more research before deciding whether I could convince a court that petty larceny does not apply, but off the top of my head I think I could make an argument. That is what makes the law (and this particular case) interesting.... You ask good questions. How you describe my personal property paints a picture, especially if you are going for a specific effect. Politicians like to describe caching as a "game" when they want to ban it from a place where folks dont' like games. Spin is different than facts. How someone may describe my personal property doesn't change it to something other than my personal property. That I put it where it may not be wanted (or even where it is wanted) doesn't change that it's my personal property. Heck even if the land manager uses the abandoned property laws to get rid of a cache it doesn't change that it's personal property. Proof there is that I can go claim it and normally the rules allow for that (since in reality agencies understand the concept of personal propery and would rather have the owner claim it than dispose of it). You make a great point about the reasonable right to remove the property. If somone thought it was litter and tossed it. I hold no hard feelings. They did no wrong. That goes back to intent though. If they knew it was a cache and took it anyway (and a power maggot knows it's a cache) then they know they are taking personal property they have no right to take. This is a great example of why judges have (and should have) latitude. Your parting advice for the guy is good. Go for the plea. I for one having dealt with someone amazingly similar would want the book thrown at him for the legal maximum available. I'm willing to help pay for an attorney if someone closer to the issue wants to force the issue.

We do consider the intent. Find a banna peel, yup rubbish. Find a gun. Hmmm...that's not litter maybe I should call the police. Find a wallet, maybe I should use the DL to find the owner. We do consider the intent and use our judgment when finding objects, or practicing CITO. For most trash, it's pretty clear. Back to my Fish and GAme example. If you thow away a camera left by Fish and Game that clearly looks broken and it's traced to you (because it wired your photo in) I dont' think your faulty judgment will be a factor. Your intent may be. It's a simple fact that a cache has a better pedigree of ownership than most things. It's als oa simple fact that most of us claim ownership of our caches. Edit: The gun did happen here. They threw it away first. Then rethought that action.