Jump to content

egami

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    1437
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by egami

  1. And the fundamental problem with people abusing protected areas is to be ignored?
  2. Heck, this one cache I went to 5 times including my original find the subsequently with my kids and other new cachers, and every time the cache was in a different spot near this huge hollowed out log. I am 4 finds short! What I don't get is why people even bother making notes on subsequent trips to a cache...never read any personally, maybe like me they are back with other cachers. I guess I feel like it was their day...I don't even note, I just let them mark their finds. Only time I've made another post on a cache, outside of an event cache, is for maintenance purposes. Just me though...but I definitely wouldn't log a second find.
  3. Public may mean it's yours, but it doesn't give you an inherent right to do as you please. Just as you can't do as you please in your own house. There are laws, rules and regulations for reasons. Usage of public lands are a privilege not a right. And, I'd bet you a paycheck there were signs all over the place about those sensitive areas. You can't physically fence everything off in all scenarios and not inhibit the wildlife in their habitat...that's an unrealistic expectation.
  4. This ads a new twist now doesn't it. I know I said I was through earlier, but what can I say? I'm a glutton for punishment. Of all the two-faced, double-dealing, too big for his britches idiots! To allow all public access to roam and travel anywhere they want, but deny a placement of a cache is unacceptable. This person obviously needs scrutiny from congress and anywhere else they derive funding from. SD The problem isn't with the off road trails and other such areas though... Numerous geocaches have been placed within the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park without authorization. No consideration was given to resource sensitivity in the placement of any of these geocaches, and many have been discovered in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves. They have rules it would seem that weren't being followed and, in addition, cachers were violating sensitive areas. It's not uncommon for land managers to enforce rules for specific groups that don't punish the bulk of the traffic to an area...if you were a more avid hunter you might relate this. I see this often in areas where hunting is prohibited in the same area hiking, biking, walking and even geocaching are permitted. It's a common, legal practice. In fact, you could argue it's their job...their purpose is specifically to protect these areas.
  5. Exactly. This problem will take care of itself eventually...when enough federal, state and local land managers are tired of fighting the problem. Even though the DNR, overall, in our state are very passive at the moment, I know from direct, personal contact with one of the higher-up's here in Iowa that he has a fairly dubious view of it and it'd take maybe one bad incident in the press to make him make things miserable for geocachers. I wouldn't be shocked to start seeing laws passed specifically related to geocaching.
  6. I am not blaming Reviewers. I am just saying it'd be nice if caches published in areas with known sensitive wildlife areas were more carefully analyzed. Don't take what I said has "this is the way it should be"....I don't know what the best solution is, but I wouldn't mind raising the bar on all caches, personally. Then what do see the issue as being? There isn't one? Or there isn't a solution for it?
  7. I purposely tried to avoid derailing it too far, but that thought did cross my mind...
  8. Really? KitFox has forgotten he agreed to the guidelines by placing a cache on his watch list and we are the one spouting opinions? You do realize that isn't KitFox's cache? A cache by Jnglkat & Jnglkat2 (adopted by Team Gecko) I am confused by that reply...
  9. Exactly, there are lot of things that are legal that aren't virtuous.
  10. I understand that...but let's face it, in the given example there are clearly sighted violations of people not respecting extremely sensitive wildlife areas. In most cases, you are exactly right...that's the way it is in Iowa, 90% of the grounds are probably no big deal type areas. I agree with you in most cases it's not that big of a deal and I am certainly not asking for demanded sanctions. I do think, however, that it would be nice if there was a better way to avoid these types of scenarios. Whether it involved a longer approval process and require Reviewers to have familiarity, or contact with more local, respected cachers, to help ensure these types of cache placements in more sensitive areas aren't just rubber-stamped. Unrealistic, I am sure...I am not saying that is the answer, but I think better effort could be made than what is being done now to help avoid it.
  11. Regardless, we agree, so is this really producing anything other than we were looking at things differently? The point of my reply wasn't the cache, virtual or physical, the point was no he doesn't have control. You're nitpicking an issue that's not really that big of a deal. Sorry it caused you so much trouble...the point, still at this stage in the exchange, is the same...no, he only has control over the land. The fact is, it didn't matter whether we were talking physical cache, virtual cache, web cam cache or Waymarking.com...no, he doesn't have control. You were focused on the virtual cache, I was replying in light of physical cache, both are beside the main point I was making.
  12. This was the original reply. I was merely pointing out that he is indeed NOT controlling anything on the website, but physical caches on the property. At which point in the conversation you had not specifically mentioned virtual caches and the cache example posted was a traditional. I can't read your mind that you were referring to virtual earth caches.
  13. It would appear that primitive camping wouldn't be allowed in these areas:
  14. You're missing the point and making this more complex than it actually is. I was speaking purely in generic terms when talking about a cache...obviously, in the case of a virtual cache, he isn't going to remove it physically. I never said he could, legally. But, he doesn't have to, because GC.com cooperates...I am sure some site out there probably doesn't and there is nothing he can do.
  15. I understand what an earth cache is. I understand what a log is on geocaching.com. I said he is regulating the physical cache. It would appear the Reviewer is assisting him on the gc.com side, but the point is...he maintains the location and if he, or someone that works there, finds the coordinates that point to that land then I believe gc.com policy is to work in conjunction with land managers and their complaints will dictate gc.com taking care of the virtual listing.
  16. That isn't what he is regulating...he is regulating the cache existing on the property.
  17. It's always annoyed me to some degree when I see the sense of entitlement many people show toward "public" land. Many tend to forget that public land isn't by default a free for all. It's one thing when you're talking ROW and another when you are talking National Parks, I know. I just think that generally, from what I've seen, most cachers probably don't seek permission in these situations in general and this was bound to happen and it will happen again. I would be for a bit stricter reviewing on caches before they go into certain areas, but I am sure most don't want that and will say it puts to much on the Reviewers shoulders.
  18. I agree with this sentiment. If it's a personal, unique lengthy log it's one thing, but I might be annoyed by and obvious cut and paste repeat as well as a cache owner especially if the content wasn't related directly to my cache location and experience. I see you responded to The Herd already very respectively, so I am not meaning to drag this out, but just to revise my stance knowing a little more about the situation.
  19. We had a discussion like this on our Iowa board recently regarding DNR and various lands. It's interesting, because here in Iowa on one hand you have the DNR who have a policy, but nothing published on their website and when I e-mailed about 10 park managers I only found one that knew what the geocaching policy was without referring me to the state level and they were very open about it and didn't really care. Then on the other hand, you have USFW and various entities that have strict policies and very, very passionate feelings about any such activities be it geocaching, letterboxing or even hiking. What came out of the discussion was that it's always best to ask before we burn bridges inadvertently. I think part of the problem is though that the majority of cachers, or at least a significant portion, don't see that discussion here or on the more local websites.
  20. I think he's saying the ads are a necessary evil to keep costs down and there is no sense promoting any more advertising that absolutely necessary. At least, that's how I'd interpret the situation. Let's face it...we're conditioned to see ads on the Internet, and what they have is pretty minimal. However, if caches started being monopolized by billboarding it'd probably tend to turn people off versus attract people.
  21. Then that would also apply to you disagreeing with my perception.
  22. Let me skip to 6. Log owners have final say, period. It sucks because you probably wrote a very well, thought out note, but at the end of the day they can delete as they see fit. I would just ignore it and move on because it will likely never change. Sorry to hear that.
  23. Whatever, I see you dodged the fact that I directly quoted where you said what you denied you said. I think that alone speaks volumes of your stance. I like RK, he's a good guy, but I don't have respect for him on that one aspect of deliberately leaving geo-litter. Doesn't mean I hate him. Doesn't mean I am judging him, but I believe that is wrong. Peace.
  24. You don't have to bet anything...I, as a man, can acknowledge that I have faults I probably don't acknowledge...it's part of life. This isn't about them, but they are just as wrong if they know that is truly not the right thing to do, yes. If you want to pretend that RK doesn't know that's not the right thing to do then go ahead. I don't believe that. I've seen him preach here before about it...but now that he's throwing a little tantrum about this incident it's all the sudden ok to use a deliberate wrong to right the situation in his mind. Again, pretend he doesn't know that in his youthfulness or whatever excuse you want to make for him, but I've seen him preach against it here before and he knows that isn't the right thing to do. His opinion about the archiving is his and he is entitled to it, but when he stoops to deliberately shirking responsibility...that is wrong, period.
  25. Yes, you did...can you find it? You said explicitly: Go back, do a search, it's plain as day...post #95, there I did it for you. I don't believe honestly is commendable when you deliberately, blatantly do something wrong...you don't see it that way, fine.
×
×
  • Create New...