Jump to content

egami

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    1437
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by egami

  1. 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 The new policy somehow addresses caches that have been archived but left in place?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.
  2. 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. You are taking that slightly out of context, iirc...someone was asking what authority that he had. I was stating the only thing HE has authority to is the removal of a physical cache. I know he can contact Groundpsak to remove the cache and I believe I made that point later in the thread, so we agree on that aspect. That person was trying to contest the concept of them being able to police the Internet, and technically that is true they can not.
  3. Good luck getting caching back in the park with that attitude...I am fearful that's the very attitude that got caching kicked out of the park to begin with...
  4. Don't confound the issue...if it's reasonable for you to challenge these statements on the forums then it's also reasonable for me to assert that this is STILL an incredibly one-sided story. Again, I never refuted anything, the point was simply a statement of fact...it was never an expectation to hear the side of it here. You can refute whatever you like here...it's an open Internet forum. Frankly, this thread has been largely belly-aching and whining about a situation that clearly needs a more level-headed, clear cut approach to lobby them to allow this activity. Maybe what would be more constructive is to create a new thread dedicated to this effort...maybe someone here that has so much passion, and can get past their cyber-venting, could lead this effort and get the story in the local newspaper and start taking the positive, forward-moving steps it's going to take to get things changed. But, right now, all I see (for the most part) is whining. And I see a one-sided story....which certainly appears to have a great deal of merit. So, if this one-sided story DOES have merit...conventional wisdom would suggest to me to get motivated and start organizing to get this reversed. However, again, I never asserted anyones contentions here were false and I never expected the side of the story to be published here...I merely made a simple, factual comment that the three of you took WAY out of context and flamed me for...
  5. Keeping in mind the other rules of thumb, .... ...that you will never please everyone. Also, some people will just never be pleased. ... and that some people are only pleased when they are complaining about something. And some people are only pleased when they are complaining about others complaining about something!
  6. No there is not . . . !!! That statment is false. I have found many caches in ABDSP and they were NOT In fact, when I was in the mudcave area, there were two of us negotiating its twists and turns. Our progress was stopped a couple of times because of the crowd of people, families with their children, teenagers, and couples who were also in the cave that day. There were easily more than sixty other people in the cave that day. We wondered where the Greyhound bus had parked . . . The cache we were heading towards was not in the cave and had only been found about six times in the past year. How could six people over a year's time cause any damage when the area is open to crowds of other people? Ok, that's your side of it...I am not contesting your side. I am only saying that I would like to hear their side of it...is that unreasonable?
  7. I understand this...you haven't told me anything I am not perfectly aware of from reading the thread.
  8. Again, that reiterated my point...this is largely one side of the issue, so I am glad you can finally see the point there. As far as negating facts, I agree, conversely...I don't see these facts negated: 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. So, I am simply saying there seems to be some level of legitimacy to the ABDSP side. No question some of their actions are "questionable". However, it also seems hypocritical to me that cachers will take a hard line stance against ABDSP when there does seem to be some legit concern. Again, it's simply underscoring the point that I want to hear more...and I will continue to follow the topic because it interests me. I don't want to see more parks go this direction.
  9. I agree SD. I'm not going waste my time with a troll either. I think most people will see how hypocrtical these rangers down here are being. It's really ashame. Right, God forbid that I actually would be interested in hearing their side of it.
  10. Again, all I am saying is there is not clear cut information as to the full reasoning behind their efforts...it's, at best, second-hand information...outside of the OP that supposedly is text from one of the management level people. Do you have a problem with the fact that I would like to hear more from THEIR side? Because that is all my comment was regarding. And, here we have the ad hominem attack to top it off...the guy who clearly has read the entire thread criticizing me for "coming in late" and "trolling" fails to acknowledge I was well into this conversation before he was... Yes, I have 29 cache finds because I have a life outside of caching and I have 3 kids to drag along and am casual. It clearly means that my opinion has no merit because I don't devote as much of my life to a hobby as you do. I have 1200 posts because I enjoy caching and I enjoy the forum and I work in IT... But, none of that matters because the real issue here is you're trying to defeat my logic with personal attacks rather than backing off being defensive and reading it at face value... I at no point in time have stood 100% behind their actions...again, because I don't know the whole story. But, GOD FORBID, someone desire to hear ALL SIDES before coming to a conclusion...I should just be a geocaching sheep like you and assume the worst.
  11. First, I've read most of it...secondly, what is uneducated, un-constructive about saying I haven't heard their side of the story from their perspective...am I just to ASSUME that everything the cachers here have posted is the WHOLE story? I have no way of knowing what their perspective is from this conversation outside of second-hand, at best, accounts of it. Sounds to me like a bunch of knee-jerk responses to my comments making assumptions about my position versus reading it for face value. Have I taken the time to read it...you'd know if you had read it all...
  12. Which is precisely my point... You act as if I was contesting the validity of your statements.
  13. Not about this specific situation. I am just saying...there are two sides to every story and I don't see the ABDSP side represented. Geocaching is a privilege, not a right...if they control the ground then they don't have to have any better reason to disallow caching. Not that I agree with that, but that's the reality...if it were effecting me I'd be lobbying and working hard with those in the area to demonstrate the positives and trying to overcome that hurdle.
  14. This clearly shows the mentality of the local rangers that we are dealing with... There are two sides to every story... Maybe you don't understand that they are removing caches from the park because they "claim" that geocaches are "litter." This example clearly contradicts their position. That's your side of the story...maybe it's right, maybe there is more to it...
  15. I communicated with our city and county departments before placing a cache in a local park in town independently. The local police (who are usually fresh meat out of school waiting to jump into a bigger city job) were not aware of geocaching, so I took them a brochure and showed them where mine would be located and that others could pop up without warning in various places. They were easy to work with. The county deputy said they were already aware of what geocaching was and were thankful for the communication. Both, of course, cautioned about placement on private property and other public areas around schools and such and asked that we be sure that we are communicating with local property owners or departments controlling different public grounds.
  16. This clearly shows the mentality of the local rangers that we are dealing with... There are two sides to every story...
  17. Technically, using the Clay Jar ratings system I am not aware of anywhere in Iowa that would qualify for a true 5/5 in terms of strictly terrain (which, I believe terrain alone won't get you to a 5 anyway). I think the only thing that would tip the 5 rating scale, in Iowa, would be the use of "specialize equipment". That could be a cache that simply requires a canoe or even a ladder. We are planning on implementing a 5/5 this summer on a campground down in south-central Iowa that will require special equipment / knowledge to complete. But, from a purely terrain perspective...it'll be easy.
  18. egami

    Am I the Only One?

    Actually, Iowa is a lot more diversely landscaped than you may think. Especially compared to say...Nebraska. We are much more rolling hills than great plains...I work in IT for a Ag company...I know the farmers would certainly argue that point.
  19. egami

    Am I the Only One?

    This from the cacher from Prairie City. Yeah, I mentioned this back in '03 and Welch shot me down. Mn. and Mo. are apparently Midwest but the geology conditions put us closer to Ok than Il. Even though we border those three states. I still disagree by virtue that we're generally referred to as "midwest"...
  20. There are various telescoping type poles that you could potentially use. Also, some of those ladders that fold up to fit in a trunk can extend very high as well...if you want to avoid climbing more than you have to.
  21. No worries...I just have seen mentioned multiple times that "Wal-Mart has a corporate policy allowing geocaches". All I know is that a) no one can ever show me evidence of this and my personal discussion with local Wal-Mart store managers (not 'peon' managers, the guy responsible for that store) have never heard of such a thing. It's still my belief that these placements should, at a minimum, be run by the store manager...typically the guy whose name prints on their receipts. Not the guy managing the Subway inside the Wal-mart or the guy managing pushing carts in the door. Actually, what you've read a number of times is the photo guy stating that WalMart has policies that forbid geocaches and others stating that this cannot be true, since WM has been known to have permitted some caches. Actually, I've never read that...I have read numerous responses asserting people use that line, but not sure I've ever actually seen it.
  22. The thread, however, is about 'safety'.No, the thread is about what those 'things' are called.You are absolutely correct. What are those things called? Whatchamacallit's...I think...
  23. The thread, however, is about 'safety'. No, the thread is about what those 'things' are called.
  24. No worries...I just have seen mentioned multiple times that "Wal-Mart has a corporate policy allowing geocaches". All I know is that a) no one can ever show me evidence of this and my personal discussion with local Wal-Mart store managers (not 'peon' managers, the guy responsible for that store) have never heard of such a thing. It's still my belief that these placements should, at a minimum, be run by the store manager...typically the guy whose name prints on their receipts. Not the guy managing the Subway inside the Wal-mart or the guy managing pushing carts in the door.
×
×
  • Create New...