Jump to content

egami

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    1437
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by egami

  1. I know actually taking this stance won't exactly endear Mr Jorgensen to our activity, but......

    How the heck can ya regulate/prohibit someone from basically printing directions to a spot on a website?

     

    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.

  2. Do you think it's reasonable to expect to hear from those rangers in these threads? Do you think it's reasonable for us to refute the false statement they made that you just posted? Do you think it's reasonable that we post the facts of strange things that they are now doing?

     

    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...

  3. How about:

     

    At the end of the day, a good rule of thumb is to choose the container that you feel is best for your cache.

    Keeping in mind the other rules of thumb, ....
    ...that you will never please everyone.
    :grin:

     

    Also, some people will just never be pleased.

    :yikes:

    ... 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! :yikes:

  4. <snip>

     

    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. <snip>

    No there is not . . . !!! :yikes: That statment is false. :yikes:

     

    I have found many caches in ABDSP and they were NOT

    . . . in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves."

    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?

  5. I know you won't comprehend this but here it is anyway EGAMI.....

     

    The caches placed there where done WITH permission, and under the guidlines. New guy comes in who hates caching, and begins yanking all of them. There is no evidence that any cache was in violation of set rules, or resulting in damage to any area of the park.

     

    This is my last reply to any of your posts. If this forum had an ignore feature, you would be one of the trolls on my list. I'm done with you.

     

    SD

     

    I understand this...you haven't told me anything I am not perfectly aware of from reading the thread.

  6. Here's a clue: They are not going to post here. Also their side can't negate the facts... :yikes:

     

    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.

  7. I say you sir are a troll. Someone who has found 29 caches since July of '06 yet has over 1200 posts in the forums. It appears to me as if you like to talk, but not to act. And here you are talking again, trying to stir the pot in a thread which already seen it's fair share of heated debate. SD ps- nice way to go back and basically re-write your entire post after hitting submit.
    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.

  8. Here's what I see...

     

    This thread has gone on for more than 4 pages. In that span we went from caches being seized and disposed of by park personel. Lots of wild theories followed. Finally, someone WHO HAS BEEN IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH PARK PERSONEL gave reason why.

     

    Now you come and claim that something "isn't the whole story."

     

    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.

     

    I say you sir are a troll. Someone who has found 29 caches since July of '06 yet has over 1200 posts in the forums. It appears to me as if you like to talk, but not to act. And here you are talking again, trying to stir the pot in a thread which already seen it's fair share of heated debate.

     

    SD

     

    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.

  9. Have you actually taken the time to read this thread? It sounds as if you are just coming in at the last page with NO CLUE what your are talking about. Please go back and read, then make educated, constructive comments.

     

    SD

     

    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...

  10.  

    Do you know something we don't? :yikes:

     

    They are supposedly working on a "Master Plan" for Anza Borrego Desert State Park and the properties nearby.

     

    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.

  11. UPDATE: There is still no progress with ABDSP, but I thought I would share an example of what is going on right now from one of our local cachers:

     

    Just some food for thought: After our recent trip to ABDSP this past weekend "saving" a few caches from destruction we stopped by It's In The Can Man which has been removed per ABDSP policy. Now, the cache was hidden inside a rusted old can in a pile of dozens of other rusty old cans. The cache is gone but the rusty old cans are still there. Somebody please fill me in on how a cache can be litter and rusty old cans are not. Maybe there is some kind of historical significance with the cans...

    This clearly shows the mentality of the local rangers that we are dealing with... :yikes:

     

    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. :yikes:

     

    That's your side of the story...maybe it's right, maybe there is more to it...

  12. Has anyone had A CSO come to an event To try to educate the LEO's about geo cacahing. We are getting cameras installed throuout the city soon and they are a combination of HLS and LEO cams. I guess i just would like some advice on maybe getting them educated about our Hobby.

     

    Thanks For any Imput.

     

    Greg

     

    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.

  13. UPDATE: There is still no progress with ABDSP, but I thought I would share an example of what is going on right now from one of our local cachers:

     

    Just some food for thought: After our recent trip to ABDSP this past weekend "saving" a few caches from destruction we stopped by It's In The Can Man which has been removed per ABDSP policy. Now, the cache was hidden inside a rusted old can in a pile of dozens of other rusty old cans. The cache is gone but the rusty old cans are still there. Somebody please fill me in on how a cache can be litter and rusty old cans are not. Maybe there is some kind of historical significance with the cans...

    This clearly shows the mentality of the local rangers that we are dealing with... :yikes:

     

    There are two sides to every story...

  14. 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.

  15. Really, if you guys don't think you're on the great plains, you need to look outside! :yikes:

     

    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. :yikes:

  16. That thinks my state is in the wrong category? I am so used to being "midwest"... :yikes:

     

    This from the cacher from Prairie City. :yikes: 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"... :grin:

  17. I had come up with that idea as well (as I'm sure a million cachers have). I got all the materials to do it but had difficulty finding the right tree in "legal" territory...but also (not being all that young and spry), I couldn't figure out how to get the container high up in the tree. If I can find a tree I can climb, I'd still like to do it. I have all kinds of ideas for camo.

     

    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.

  18. Egami, wish I could post a link for ya. These policies aren't available to the general public. I used to have a big binder, every page marked "For internal use only," as well as access to them over the stores intra net.

     

    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 :yikes: 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. :yikes:

  19. Egami, wish I could post a link for ya. These policies aren't available to the general public. I used to have a big binder, every page marked "For internal use only," as well as access to them over the stores intra net.

     

    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 :yikes: 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.

  20. I found one where the hider used a piece of 2" ABS pipe with a screw on type cap on each end. It was about a foot long. Inside the fence post he placed something (I'm assuming another piece of pipe) that the cache could rest on inside the fence post. When I pulled the cap off...no apparent cache, even after running my finger around the inside of the post. He placed the cache about 5" below the top of the fence post. It took a bit longer to find than the average fence post, plus it had room for swag and coins and stuff. No glue required:)

     

    Yeah, one I found was similar at an event...they had put a stick in the bottom and the PVC tube went inside and rested on the stick.

×
×
  • Create New...