secondnomore

Maybe a message to the reviewer could help at times, I guess.

I had to to send a rather persuasive plea to my reviewer to get mine expedited, but it did get done. We have a regional activity tomorrow and I was sweating it out trying to get one done tonight that was submitted on the 21st. Others in this area had approvals faster than I did ( we had one guy who hid TODAY and was approved TODAY) and I was getting concerned.

EVERYTHING we ever do in life represents an agenda of some kind. Enjoying the activity of Geocaching is an "agenda" we all have... that's why we go out there. Rejecting Rambler's cache because of a perceived "agenda" would IN ITSELF have a "agenda" of its own. In that case, the "agenda" would be to uphold political correctness and to deny those who find the killings of 9-11-01 repulsive and disgusting, the opportunity to memorialize those who died. I mean, do we have people who think those killings WEREN'T disgusting, reviewing caches? Do we have reviewers who think that killing 3,000 people on that day was a GOOD and HONORABLE act? By denying those memorial caches, someone is tacitly saying that it's OK to "forget" 9-11 because to remember the deaths might "offend" someone. If that had happened, the WRONG "agenda" wins out, and that is always an obscenity in itself. Good for you, Rambler! Glad you stuck to your guns and I will make it a point to go nab your cache later today the first chance I get. Someone at Groundspeak should be ashamed, and I don't mean honeychile... she was overruled by someone who needs to get a clue.

I feel compelled to respond to the posts I have seen here, specifically biosearch's outbursts of environmentalist bravado. The fact is, ANY and ALL laws can be changed. I say we work through our Congressmen and Senators to get them to recognize the value of Geocaching and how it dovetails with the educational and recreational mission of our National Parks system. Get some laws passed in our favor. We build Visitor's Centers there, we allow recreational activities there of other types... I personally see it as quite simply a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to disallow another LEGAL activity in areas where any other type of human activity is permitted within NPS-regulated lands. There is a difference between an "park" and a "preserve". I understand the concept behind a "preserve", namely that it be kept in pristine natural state, undeveloped in any way, untouched basically by man. OK, granted that SOME areas may warrant such protection. All I can say is, you better not expect Americans to swallow the idea of closing off too much of OUR land in that manner in such a heavy-handed and restrictive way. That is for totalitarian governments, not freedom-loving peoples. When WE pay our tax dollars for National Parks we expect to have the right to USE them. The "Preserve" concept CANNOT go beyond the bounds of reason. IF a National Park, in ANY of its areas, permits fishing, hunting, hiking, trails, etc., all of which are HUMAN activities which impact the natural state, there is no reason why Geocaching should be considered an activity which has a greater impact in said areas. I suspect that geocachers visit cache sites in even less frequency than people visit other portions of parks which are open to the public... not all park visitors are geocachers. As for biosearch and his like, just be assured that the ranks of Geocachers are growing by leaps and bounds. We WILL be heard from, and we WILL be heeded. I note with amusement one of his posts in which he referenced our RIGHTS in quotation marks, implying that he believes that they are illusory and imaginary, not to be taken seriously. Excuse me, but our rights are very real, and we intend to fight a very real fight FOR them against the heavy-handedness of regulatory intrusion. Sorry if I sound so stringent here but I am infuriated that someone should come on here Big Brother-style and interject themselves against our activity in such a way. The know-it-all, you-can't stop-us tone of those posts has me so angry I am typing this at 3:30 in the morning in opposition. (By the way, I have never heard of any such word as "furtuately"... maybe biosearch's area of proficiency is botany as opposed to journalism.) Just my opinion and position on the subject of Geocaching in NPS areas. And, I guess, on the dangers of mixing environmental activism and bureaucratic heavy-handedness and letting that dangerous combination post on a message board.