Curious George

You're relying on Mapquest as your source of information on park boundaries? That's a little rich. Shouldn't you know better than that? Yeah - that's why I verified it on a digital topo, on a Mapsource map and on a Mapsend map as well.

You admitted on another site that this is one of your many sock puppets - would you like us to post a link to that admission. How so you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously?

Not my point - the co-ordinates on the cache page were changed this afternoon. I won't argue it now....soon enough a screen capture will be posted to verify my statements. Going to head out for a bit, maybe I'll go for a drive to the beach, hmmm.

Just as expected - but fine I will keep it on topic. I'll post some information about a cache that is (was) located in a Provincial Park until some time this afternoon. How is that for staying on topic. I did not know that this site was approving moving caches any more....I must have been wrong.

Are you denying that you changed the co-ords this afternoon?

I think that a great example of how we can work in co-operation with the park governing bodies. It lets them see what's involved first hand, and monitor the situation. If they have any concerns they can contact the cache owner for a resolution.

Just for the record and those that are watching - the co-ordinates for the cache we were talking about above have been modified by the owner to move it outside of the park boundary. I wish I had to time to go and look for it right now

Thanks very much for the very polite email that you just sent me through this site. I won't post it here because it isn't appropriate - suffice it to say that I have saved a copy and I will pass it on to the site administrators. Have a nice day...

You may want to check your datum

Note to Moderator - this is not a personal attack. I am letting the readers of the thread know the back ground. If this is a concern please contact me directly ----------------------------- You are indeed the one who has a problem. For anyone not familiar with past events, you have (self-admittedly) gone from site to site and set up multiple sock puppet accounts just to cause problems. I won't bring those discussions into play here as this is not the place. You have your own agenda, whatever it may be. You have not received any support here and you act suprized....is it any wonder? For the record, your cache is clearly in a Provincial Park - will you back up your own words and remove it?

The Park name has changed and the eastern boundaries have been expanded, but in comparing it to the BC Parks map that I posted earlier the western boundaries remain the same. The position of your cache is indicated by the Unfound Cache icon.

Mapquest clearly shows that the cache is not at that location and is in the park - I'll plot the co-ordinates on a digital topo map when I get home. If I'm in error then I will apologize.

For information purposes only here is a map from the Parks BC website which shows the PARK BOUNDARIES

You are simply targeting geocaching. You have to step back and look at the big picture. Is anyone saying that geocaching never causes any damage....no they're not. What others are saying is that the impact of geocaching is not as significant as you make it out to be when you look at all other activities and factors. Does this give us a license to carry on without any changes......no. But is also doesn't warrant an all out ban. If you think banning geocaching is going to make a significant difference you are mistaken.

Using your unconfirmed statistics 250 cachers out of 10,000 visitors (lowest estimate) calculates out to 2.5% of the visits being made by cachers. Are you saying that 2.5% (which is likely high) do more damage than the other 97.5% I would venture to say that out of the other 97.5% there are probably considerably more than 2.5% that venture off trail and do damage to the terrain. Please provide some evidence to support your statitics.

Did you read the Parks Canada mandate? As I said before, why should one special interest group be excluded. Do you honestly think that banning geocaching will have a signifcant impact? I cache on two feet.....if a photographer uses his feet walk to a location and then uses a tripod to take pictures they are using 5 "feet." Does that imply that they are doing even more damage?

Everyone who steps into a park changes the landscape on some level. Why should one special interest group be excluded and not others?

I still use a sextant - got me from Miami to Puerto Rico, through the U.S. and British Virgin Islands and then up to Bermuda. We had GPS, Loran and radar, but rarely used them

Absolutely correct - sorry if you interepreted my statements otherwise OGA - Admin. I won't be replying to DBC anymore but I am willing to take part in constructive discussion on this issue because I feel that it is an important one. And I'm more than happy to provide input and information on the real status of caching in B.C.

You couldn't be more wrong.....and no one appointed you to speak on behalf of British Columbia you arrogant twit. Note to Moderator: warn away or suspend me if you must but this guy is a real piece of work and someone has to say something. Have a nice day.

You seem to have an answer for anything that doesn't agree with your line of thinking. As much as I'd love to continue this with you it isn't serving any purpose and it isn't helping with the current situation. Meaningful debate is one thing, spewing rhetoric is quite another. I'm going to take the high road here and bow out of this. Most of the people who have been following this thread, and similar threads on other sites, can and likely have already drawn their own conclusions about you.

Well you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to agree with your numbers. What about mountain bikers, partiers, illegal 4x4 activity?? I guess the damage they cause is eclipsed by the damage caused through the rape and pillage strategy you are telling us that we all practice. Your previous post contained two common sense policies which support geocaching and go against many of your previous arguments. They are perfect examples of co-operation between the parties. You don't seem to have any interest in a reasonable solution, you just want to stir things up. If you're not willing to contribute in a meaningful manner then please just go away. You're only making it worse for all of us.

Don't assume......you know what they say. I didn't say that it was a one to one ratio, but 250-300 to 1.....you're the one who is kidding yourself. You've got nothing to back that up whatsoever, and I find it insulting to geocachers in general.

Time for a different direction......in the Parks Ontario thread Cache-Tech mentioned the idea of log book only caches as a way of controlling what is in the cache. Personally I'd have no problem with that at all - I don't cache because of trade items. Taking the idea one step further - what if we worked in conjunction with Parks Canada when placing caches. Instead of log books and trade items, they contained a log book and special info about the park in question. It could be as simple as a brochure, or something special created which gives information about a special part of the park. I know that if I was out caching and came across some special or significant info I would want to check it out. The cache owner would be responsible for maintenance, and the material could be produced or at least approved by local parks staff. It would be a great way to work together and it could include monitoring the site as well. This would also help Parks Canada to meet their mandate of public education.