vermontcathy

Two points. First, you said "They also have given blanket permission for caching" That's my point - someone gave permission, so now you don't need to ask every time you want to place a cache. But someone gave permission at some point. I must strongly disagree with your assumption that if someone gives permission to use their private property for a trail, then it is a given that people can place caches without further permission. Your statement - "the owners gave permission for the greenway to use that property as a trail and thus allowed any and all casual uses for which a trail is enjoyed. That includes caches..." Involving someone's private property in an online (and on-the-ground), clandestine game is not a traditional trail use. BUT even if you could somehow legally argue that it is, it is IRRELEVANT! If the owner does not feel it is a normal trail use, and isn't happy that someone did it without permission, they can revoke permission for the public to use their land. Then, all your arguing about what is a casual trail use is a moot point - you've caused all users, cachers, walkers, etc., to loose the right to use that land. I also must point out that in this particular situation (in my town), the trail does not simply pass through someone's land - the ENTIRE 2 mile trail system is on private land.

The events are posted in the weekly email. If I remember right the order is general news then mega events by date, then the next section is the local events (I can't remember if it's by date or by increasing distance from your home cords) and then caches (by distance from your home cords). There is one near you on the 8th of June about 15 miles (straightline) from the last cache you logged. Early Summer Get Together by Cornflakes (GC1C24J) Thanks for pointing this out. I incorrectly thought the list was in increasing distance from my home location, as the Recently Published Caches are. I wonder why some sections of that email are in increasing distance, and others aren't...

Oh, come on! You expect a huge sign listing every possible thing that is and isn't allowed?? "Please do not start a forest fire. Please do not cut down our trees and sell the wood. Please do not grow pot on our land. Please do not string all our trees with christmas lights just because you think it looks cute. Please do not camp here overnight. Please do not start a vegetable garden on our land." You may be shocked to know that there isn't even a sign at the entrance to this land. Welcome to Vermont! We expect people to be responsible and respectful. Cathy

Revers the question. How do we ensure that kids won't play on those private lands that accomodate the public? Do we even want to go there? I don't understand what you are saying. Could you clarify? Kids (and anyone else) ARE allowed on the land. It is privately owned, but open to the public to use (OBVIOUSLY with restrictions - users can't cut down the land owner's trees, pitch a tent and camp overnight, etc.).

RIGHT EXACTLY! THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT! The people who place the caches need to figure it out, and four different people failed to figure that out in this situation. All I want is to prevent this (placing caches on open to the public, but privately owned land, without permission) in the future. If people had to get permission for ALL caches, that would solve the problem of people incorrectly assuming it is public. But OK, you don't want that. Fine. But then how do we stop people who do absolutely zero research on the land and assume it is public if it isn't?

The policy says, and I quote, "you need to contact the managing agency". How is it possibly to mis-interpret that? What am I missing here?

Ha, ha. That's funny. Reading every week's Groundspeak email, I've never seen an event anywhere in my state. well, there was a event two weeks ago, and there's another one this month. i AM a geocacher who lives in your area, and it's not hard to make contact with the rest of us. Huh. I do try to read Groundspeak each week, and have never seen anything. Are the events posted there?

Ha, ha. That's funny. Reading every week's Groundspeak email, I've never seen an event anywhere in my state.

OK, I'm beginning to soften a little (but only a little) on my opinion that people need to get permission when placing a cache on public land. My opinion is significantly influenced by geocaching.com's own statement that people do need to contact the managing agency. If that rule is not true (if people don't have to contact the managing agency) then the statement should be removed from geocaching.com. For instance, our town could say, "Well, the Geocaching website tells cache placers to contact us, so we will just deal with requests as they come in, on a case-by-case basis." But then there could be a cached placed, and no one contacted the town and the town wonders why not, since it says on Geocaching.com that they must. That's my position on it. My problem is that I've got FOUR cachers who all assumed that it was public land (despite LOTS of evidence to the contrary), and they also assume they don't need to get permission for public land. So how do we prevent this from happening in the future, either on the same land in question, or on other private-but-open-to-the-public land that exists in my town?

Several people have mentioned that the reviewer for their area often maintains a list of areas with special rules. The reviewer for my area covers 7 states! - DE, GA, ME, MA, NH, RI & VT I really don't see how he could maintain a list including one family's land in one town in Vermont. Also I don't see anything on the state caching site about rules, what areas have policies, etc. If y'all disagree with geocaching.com's statement that people need to contact the land managers to get permission, maybe the guidelines should be changed...

I have a personal interest in this because I live 100 feet from the trail and I know the owners and feel the owners should be acknowledged and appreciated - starting with asking permission if you put a cache on their land. Also, as I said, the town has a lot of trails that are on private land and if the owners get pissed off, they could revoke permission for the public to use their land at any time, and that would suck. The specific problem is that I knew from reading the cache descriptions that they hadn't asked permission, because over a year ago I had asked the owners if I could place a cache (I never got around to it) and they said "Yes, BUT.." They wanted people to stay on the trails, they didn't want people bushwacking, and so they wanted the cache close to the trail. They wanted people told to leave gates (open or closed) as you found them, for the animals in pasture. So my problem was that the owners did not know about the caches, and I knew they would want to know, and I knew they hadn't been asked (since the restrictions they told me hadn't been put on the cache pages).

So you're saying that just because a small town doesn't have a policy, that means that you don't have to ask? That's nuts. I'm sure some people in my town's government and trails committees have a vague idea about caching but never really thought about a policy. But I'll say to them, do you care if someone puts a cache in the endangered bats' cave? Do you care if they put a cache half way up the wind turbine on town land? Then if so, we need a policy. But just because there isn't a policy doesn't mean you don't have to ask. How do you know the town DOESN'T have a policy? Maybe they do - but you don't know because YOU DIDN'T ASK. That's my point! This particularly situation may cause the town to make a policy, but just because they didn't have one posted on their website, doesn't mean it's a blank check to do whatever you want. Cathy

Obviously they should have gotten permission - it's private land. My question is how to respond to the excuse that they didn't know it was private, so they didn't bother getting permission. I say that since you have no way of knowing if a town or managing agency has a policy regarding caching unless you ask, you have to ask. PLUS, geocaching.com's own policy says you need to get permission even on public land, so I don't know why people are questioning that - (see the "Will it be on private or public land?" section on http://www.geocaching.com/about/hiding.aspx) Oh, and I've been in contact with the cache owners and the land owners and they are working on the situation. How would I contact the reviewer? Cathy

But how would a cache placer KNOW whether the town cared, if they don't ASK? If I was going to place a cache in a town park, I'd call the town and ask if there's any policy or if they care, and if they say no problem, we don't care, then I'm all set. You said yourself that some managing agencies care and some don't - the only way to know if you're in one of the (perhaps rare) towns/agencies that care, is to ask. As far as I know, the town has no policy, because it hasn't come up much. But some recently preserved land has some endangered bats, and I bet if the land managers were asked about it, they'd say yes, but not in this particular area. I say, you gotta ask, it only takes a few minutes. Cathy

Here's a link (http://hinesburg.org/hart.html), and the land in question is the Russell Family Trails. Now, I ask you: does something about the name of the trail possibly indicate that it might be privately owned land??? Such as "Russell Family Trails"?? Also, you'll see that right below the trail name, it says "Two miles of trails on a 63-acre working farm." If you click on "Info/directions", it says at the bottom of the page "The Russell family has generously conserved these trails for public use - please respect the farming operation, as farm animals may be grazing in the fields." Now, the map itself says nothing. I'm thinking the cache placers may have gotten a link to the map somewhere and never read the website. I'll be working with the trails committee to make sure the map PDF has more info on it. But I believe that cache placers should spend at least a couple minutes researching their hide. And just a tiny bit of research would have made it obvious that this is generously shared, private land, and they should have gotten permission. Cathy

Also, see "Will it be on private or public land?" section on http://www.geocaching.com/about/hiding.aspx. It says "If you place it on private land, please ask permission before putting it there! If you place the cache on public lands you need to contact the managing agency to find out about their rules." So that would run counter to what you said. Cathy

but how would the cache placer know whether the public lands require permission if they don't ask? For instance, suppose this land was owned by the town, and not private. The town could have a policy saying no caches, or caches, but you have to let us know about it (in one town park a cache had to be moved because a windmill was being installed, so in that situation it helped that the town knew about it). Cathy

In this situation, though, it's not a case of lying, it's a case of people being clueless - not knowing that they need permission regardless of whether it's private or public. This would point it out to them. Cathy

In my town in Vermont, the town is working towards creating a network of trails, on both public and private land. We are very grateful to the private landowners who allow the public to use their trails. The town has some maps on their website for these trails. We've had some cachers place 6 caches along a 1.75 mile trail on private property in the last few weeks, without asking permission. When I asked the cache owners if they had gotten permission, I got a variety of responses, and I'd like to hear people's opinions on it. Responses included: 1. Since there was already another cache in the area, I assumed that cache owner had done the research 2. Since there was a map on the town website, I assumed it was public land, so I didn't get permission I argue that even if it WAS public, you need to get permission from the managing agency. How do you know the town doesn't have a policy regarding caches? (see the "Will it be on private or public land?" section on http://www.geocaching.com/about/hiding.aspx). Also, there are several notes on the town website saying how the land owners generously let the public use the land, so they should have known, even with a minimum amount of research that it is private land (which is open to the public). I also question the review process for caches. From looking over the submission form, the form itself does not ask the cache owner whether they got permission or not, or whether it is on public or private property. The guidelines, which the cache placer needs to check off that they read, states that "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." The guidelines also state "If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of both the reviewer and people seeking out the cache." But if the cache owner doesn't do this, and since the submission form does not ask them if it is private or public, the reviewer apparently has no way of knowing that it is private. I just think there should be a spot on the submission form that says "Is this public or private land?" "How do you know?" and "Did you get permission (if private, then from the landowners, if public, then from the managing agency)?" This would resolve the problem of people claiming that a. they didn't know it was private, and b. them claiming that they didn't know that even public land requires permission. Your thoughts? Cathy

I'm not sure about the 10 to 1 thing. If you look at how many people in the US own snowmobiles, vs. how many own xc skiis, I doubt 10 times as many own snowmobiles. If snowmobiling gets banned, people (and their businesses) will adapt, as they have for centuries. It's like when they ban smoking in bars - bar owners say they'll go out of business, there will be unemployment, no one will visit that town or state anymore. But it's not true. All the people who didn't go to bars to hang out, eat, listen to live music before, because of the smoke, now do go out to bars, and they are actually doing better than before. When one door closes, another opens. And I admit, I'd like there to be snowcoach access into the park, for my xc skiing trip. Several national parks have banned private cars and visitors must use shuttles. And enough about my horse suggestion! I was just asking. I didn't say "use horses", I just asked if that would be an option. Cathy

If you lived in West Yellowstone and depended on those businesses to feed your kids - you would think differently..... You're not listening - I would be going there, spending plenty of money, which would support the locals. Perhaps snowmobile shops would have to close, but other businesses would open and prosper. That's why I say the economy would change, but not necessarily be worse. There is just something wrong when the park rangers at the entrance booths have to wear gasmasks.

That would involve thousands of dollars in additional expenditures, such as a tow rig, trailer, horses and upkeep of all of the above. Why should that be necessary? We have an issue just like the one you mentioned involving an area known as the Crazy Mountains. 50% of the range is wilderness, while the remaining 50% is under a Travel Management Plan. There was a push to increase the amount of wilderness significantly, shutting out all other forms of recreation except foot and horse traffic. Why? There was distinct separation before, yet that didn't seem to be good enough. In fact, during the required federal meetings during the comment period, it was learned from the forest service officials that the chief complaint about noise was one that had no backing whatsoever. There wasn't a single complaint that had come into their offices regarding too much noise, and appears to be nothing but a fabrication based on a perceived possibility. Hikers involved in the TM plan efforts have asked other hikers on the trail whether or not they've had noise problems. Aside from planes flying overhead at altitude, it's been dead silent. I know this isn't the case in all situations, but the issue of hikers and noise realistically has a very small occurrence rate. If it does, and the area is deemed 'multiple use', such interactions are possible, but not necessarily likely. During a trip to the Little Belt Mountains, we saw nobody but us the entire day. If I was hiking and bothered by the noise and fumes of an ATV, and yet ATVs are legally allowed on the land, I would figure there's no point lodging an official complaint - their allowed to be there, and whoever set the rules knows that they make noise. I would simply hike somewhere else from then on. So that's probably why you don't see hikers - they don't want to be anywhere near ATVs. Allowing ATVs essentially eliminates the area as a pleasant place to hike. Oh - and the wild animals don't tend to lodge noise and pollution complaints, for some reason. And just so you don't think I'm just an east coast person who knows nothing, I've spent a lot of time in the Wind River Range of Wyoming, and after spending a day hiking in to set up camp, I'd be pretty upset to see an ATV drive up. And in terms of a ban hurting the economy, I dissagree. There will fewer ATV riders spending money in the nearby towns, but more hikers and horseback riders. The moment Yellowstone finally bans snowmobiles for good, I will be booking a xc ski vacation there. The economy will change, but it won't be worse. You complain about the cost of horses, but ATVs aren't cheap either. Sell the ATVs, ATV trailers, and buy horses and horse trailers. I bet your kids would be psyched. Besides, in a decade or two, when we run out of oil, the horses will be much more useful.

I'd much rather have land with no caches and no ATVs and snowmobiles, than land with caches and ATVs and snowmobiles. I hate the noise and smell of them. If I'm out for a peaceful walk in nature, an ATV or snowmobile driving past me ruins the experience for me. If your family can't keep up with you, could you use horses instead of ATVs?

All I can say is, thank god I live in Vermont, where there seems to be more of the "nice hike in the woods" type of caches than Wally world parking lot caches.

Are you referring to what you see on your GPSr or what you see in the mapsource software on your PC? My mapsource keeps asking for the East CD when I open the program, and sometimes I just tell it to cancel and then it only shows major roads. But this is only on the computer, not the unit itself. Did the process of uploading maps to the unit go smoothly? Are you sure you're looking at a location for which you did upload the topo map? There are a lot of settings for how the map displays, such as how much detail you want, and even whether you want to see the topo or the basemap (at least on my Legend). You could look into those settings. Cathy