Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by egami

  1. I've done the journal. It's more of a 4/4. I would personally rate it at 4.5/4.5 or so. Regardless, it is rated by the owner as a 5/5 and I think there is room to do it that way based on the length and such. I've got to check that out... This is the only 5/5 I can personally attest to having been in the vicinity of: French Peak Unfortunately, I can't log this because when I did French Peak when I lived in Washington it was before geocaching existed, but this would define a 5/5 to me. And, honestly, there are harder places in the world... It'll be interesting to see how this compares to me. It's all kind of subjective anyway...it's nice to know that there are places in the midwest thought can boast this kind of difficulty even in a subjective manner. I know when I used to live in a southern Missouri there were some surprisingly difficult hikes we did.
  2. If this statement is true -- and at this point I don't see why it wouldn't be -- then I can understand why the geocachers there are feeling surprised. I'd guess the cache reviewer for that area would also be feeling a bit confused because they were working from what they thought were the guidelines for placing caches in that park. The problem is that not all caches were meeting the guidelines.
  3. You have failed to prove your case beyond your own opinion. I kind of like that prase. I'm not a lawer. I'm merely subject to the laws and trying to follow them. To do that you have to understand them. That means when this topic came up before folks dug up the laws and the laws read exactly as I have suggested. Abandoned propety laws are the ones that can be applied to caches. Litter doesn't as caches are personal property and not discarded. Laws tend to follow trends. They vary but normally not widely. That said the maintance agreement on this site is not binding on the land manager who's the one who has to comply with the abandoned propety laws. Tell you what...go place a new geocache on that land. The Superintendent has promised to charge future caches with littering. And we'll see who wins that battle.
  4. You love saying that. Usually after you haven't made your own case beyond your own opinion. Apparently you don't understand the concept of public service. However from the home page of the California State Park system. Yeah, it's my opinion...my opinion based on actually working with local park managers at the state level. In Iowa they have no legal obligations whatsoever to allow caching. They can disallow hiking, biking, hunting, fishing or whatnot for pretty much any reason they want to make up. I doubt it's different there. California has it a bit backwards because without the Bold part the rest can't be done. If all the park system did was fence off public lands nobody would tolerate their existance. So let me ask you. How is removing high quality outdoor recreation opportunities part of their mission? Would it not stand to reason that they need to answer for it given that it is part of their mission? I'm not going to spend more time trying to convince you about some simple basics that any high schooler learned in civics. They did answer for it...you didn't like the answer. And you can run away from the argument, but the argument at a fundamental level remains the same....geocaching is a privilege not a right and when the privilege was abused then action had to be taken. I didn't say I liked it. I didn't say I agree 100% with the way they handled it, but I am very confident in my assertion from a legal perspective. Also, I am fairly confident from this thread that the geocaching community failed in IT'S self-proclaimed "mission". Yet, you all conveniently turn a blind eye to that side to justify your anger...
  5. Here the issue is to follow the law they are subject to. Caches are personal property. The same as camping equipment or a ice chest. The "right" law to follow with caches is the abaondoned property law (that is if you choose to decide that you don't want caches and want to remove them using exising laws to justify the action). Abandoned property laws do have a prescribed process to follow. You can't just throw away personal property. Thus when they treat caches like litter they are making an effort to skate around the work and effort required of the correct law by stretching beyond the breaking point litter laws. It's possible that the wording of the specific litter law that the park has to follow does fit. In general most I've read don't apply to caches. You aren't a lawyer...you are just playing one on the Internet... "Abandoned Property" could easily be thrown out on the basis of the maintenance agreement hosted here.
  6. Maybe you would "get it" if you read the thread. It's been stated many times already. When you are given park guidelines by park officials to follow and you follow them, then it doesn't make sense why your caches that meet those guidelines are all being thrown in the trash. I think your word "entitlement" is way too strong. It is more like an expectation of fair treatment and common decency towards those citizens that were acting in good faith. I think RK hit the nail on the head with his last post. Read the thread...I posted on page 1. I've read the entire thread. What's apparent to me is all rules weren't being followed at all times.
  7. You have to keep a couple of things in mind. First they do manage the parks, but they manage the parks on behalf of the public whom they serve. Geocachers are a part of the public. Second geocaching is a valid casual use of lands. By casual it's footprint is small enough to be a non issue for most areas and with a small amount of guidance can be steered away from other areas. Just as they do now with hikers, and other park users. When they make a decision that has a public impact it is their job to do what they can to have a real reason for banning an activity, give notice, educate, and keep tabs on the feedback because they may need to reverse themselves later. In other words, it is their job. You haven't demonstrated where that is anything beyond opinion. There is no legal binding laws that state what you are implying. Especially in a case like this where clearly, at some level, cachers have abused their privileges and were breaking posted park rules.
  8. Several of the Rangers are monitoring this thread, I doubt insults will help. The recent info was not from the Supt. or from notaranger, it came from another ranger who works there but chose to remain "confidential." Why did they not behave in a Professional manner? Why have the "facts" kept changing? Why haven't they posted Notes on the cache pages when they have removed the caches? Why did they post an insulting Note on one cache page for a cache dedicated to the cache owner's young daughter, saying "Just taking out the trash."? If they are monitoring this thread, let them respond to those questions, or at the very least, go to the cache pages for the caches they have removed and post Notes so other cachers do not make fruitless trips to the area and waste time looking for a container that isn't there. The bad behavior of a few cachers who were given citations does not explain why people who work for the State of California handled this situation in such an unprofessional way. Caches are allowed, and even promoted, in other California State Parks. This should have been handled differently. I think they may realize that now and that is why the "facts" and excuses keep changing . . . Why are you so intent on continually blaming the park management? They don't owe geocaching anything. Their job is strictly managing the park and when something like geocaching becomes problematic it's not their job to make sure that the geocaching community is informed and up to date on the changes... They've obviously figured out that they need to get these logs archived and GC.com apparently has agreed to work with them and do it, but to expect them to log on here and make notes on log entries? No, in fact, it's the cachers responsibility. It was noted before that the cache owners were each contacted. So, it would seem to me that it's THEIR responsibility to communicate such on their listings like they agree to do anytime they publish a cache and check the box. You know...I am in full agreement that this is a tragic, sad loss that caching is going to be stifled here, but frankly...I don't get the "entitlement" attitude. You mention that they don't have the "justification...to remove the caches and throw them away". Well, yeah they do...they manage the park. Sure, most of the caches weren't problematic, but a handful were and then for them to log on and find out that there were HUNDREDS of these I am sure was a bit overwhelming for them. This is bound to happen again unless local cachers take more care to communicate and work with park personnel. This is a lesson that everyone in the caching community should learn from. You can blame the park all you want, but I think it's patently obvious that the caching community wasn't fulfilling its obligation by seeking permission and leaving the areas better than they were found, either.
  9. In fairness, part of the problem is that more times than not regular threads will get re-routed into about one of a handful recurring topics.
  10. You know what I'd like too? A "library" type forum where you can have archived, maintained informational threads on creating caches, travel bugs, GPS reviews and strictly informational threads in one shot.
  11. On several occasions, people have attempted to alter the reality of the issue to fit their argument. You are now saying that nothing can be placed within five feet of these items. How can that be, given that these items are often placed within a foot of public sidewalks? Are people supposed to walk in the road to get by the hazardous area? The 5' thing has to do with service accessibility.
  12. Yeah, what's interesting to me is that I went back and played around with the Clay Jar rating system (the "suggested" system when submitting a cache that guides you through auto-rating it) and the only way I could get a 5 terrain was by checking the "requires special equipment" box. So, I suppose that's the only way to get it anywhere... Specialized equipement is of course always a terrain five. The other way is 'or is otherwise extremely difficult'. To get that rating, leave the first question at NO, set the 2nd to YES, and 3-5 to the bottom radial and it will come back as a terrain five. What this means is the cache is a 10+ mile, overnight hike, threw heavy overgrowth, no trail and there are Severe elevation changes. If it has only a few of those things, then its a four something (missing just one the systems gives it a four someting). Those would be the terrain 5's that probably don't exist in Iowa...figured there had to be an alternative way to obtain a 5. Just didn't toy with it enough.
  13. It would have been funny if no one would of replied to the thread.
  14. or a sixth choice 6) cachers that deliberately avoid getting permission at all costs for fear of rejection better yet, replace #2 with that since it covers that scenario and others...
  15. Not unless subsequently cache contents are going to be also.
  16. Yeah, what's interesting to me is that I went back and played around with the Clay Jar rating system (the "suggested" system when submitting a cache that guides you through auto-rating it) and the only way I could get a 5 terrain was by checking the "requires special equipment" box. So, I suppose that's the only way to get it anywhere...
  17. Well, you labeled yourself as troll in earlier discussion, so back under your bridge. I have never labeled myself a troll. I don't "troll" topics. I just find it ironic that you have a habit of falling back on that in recent discussions when things don't go your way. This is another topic that should be closed by the mods...it's gone way off base and is just generating more chaos.
  18. lol, that's classic...SD labeling people trolls again...
  19. Mmmm, I LOVE that place... Another great place used to be right up the road in Balltown. It was called Breitbach's, but they had a fire there....terrible thing too because they had such a historical presence.
  20. No, idea...if I HAD to guess, 10...but I have no idea. I started following the topic when Kit posted this.
  21. I think you are going to need a program called "cachemate", or some similar program, but that'll give you something to google and read on until someone else responds... I think there is another software package for the handhelds besides cachemate, but I don't use them, so I can't tell you for sure...
  22. Which is why I said what I did earlier about the whining in the thread...I can understand and relate to the frustration...I'd be upset too, but nonetheless it is what it is and the only way to hope in building that bridge is by coordinating an effort to work with the park. You and I may disagree on the likelihood of it...I think with effort it can be done. If pure bridge-building doesn't do it there is the more political approach. But it'll take work for sure...
  23. That isn't what he is regulating...he is regulating the cache existing on the property. He can request that Groundspeak remove the listing, which they would almost certainly do promptly. Groundspeak has been very cooperative. Not only had they been archiving any cache that was questioned prior to this change in policy, but now they are archiving every cache in the park to comply with the new policy. The strategy is that cooperation gives the best chance at having future successful negotiations with the CA State Park officials. We can always put caches back if the policy can once again be changed in our favor. I agree with this strategy. I presume that since the park rangers are removing all physical geocaches from the park, that when you say "put caches back" you are meaning new physical caches. Is that correct? Is there a presumption that archived caches will not be removed? "comply with the new policy." The new policy somehow addresses caches that have been archived but left in place? I think they are hoping that a new policy will allow them to place caches back. My understanding is that all caches were removed due to the actions of the new head honcho and that there are merely hopes of a new policy allowing caching. So, by "placing caches back" that is hopefulness and contingent on a potential change. Right now the only ones being allowed are earthcaches by approval.
  • Create New...