Is This An Illegally-placed Cache?

[+YodaDoe]

I was considering this cache on our trip out west next week:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...62-34b00df72b49

 

The cache is located on an Indian Reservation near the western Grand Canyon. The most recent log on the cache actually makes it seem like the cache is not supposed to be here and that the geocacher who placed it there does NOT have permission for it to be there. I certainly don't want to get myself into any trouble. Should this be archived?

 

I tried to email the cache owner, but my mail was returned...

 

YodaDoe

Raleigh, NC

[+Team Perks]

A quick Google search suggests that a permit is required for traveling off paved roads, including Buck and Doe Road (reference), hiking/camping (reference), or hunting (reference). It sounds to me like they may have just gone on in without bothering to pay for their entry but I could be wrong.

[+sbell111]

Since the cache is obviously on the reservation, I'm sure the approver played 20 questions with the cache owner before listing it. Just because 'somebody' wasn't aware of that approval doesn't meen it doesn't exist.

 

If you are concerned, take the cache off your list of ones to visit while you are in the neighborhood.

[+carleenp]

Since the cache is obviously on the reservation, I'm sure the approver played 20 questions with the cache owner before listing it. Just because 'somebody' wasn't aware of that approval doesn't meen it doesn't exist.

 

If you are concerned, take the cache off your list of ones to visit while you are in the neighborhood.

Since it was hidden in 2001 possibly not. My understanding is that caches on reservations require permission. I would probably bring it to the attention of the local reviewer and let him or her decide what to do with it.

[+YodaDoe]

Since it was hidden in 2001 possibly not. My understanding is that caches on reservations require permission. I would probably bring it to the attention of the local reviewer and let him or her decide what to do with it.

Right, that was what I was thinking. But I don't know how to contact the local reviewer. Any ideas?

[+Renegade Knight]

Rules and regs for caches on reservations will vary with the reservation. There is no universal rule. Also much of the lands within are privatly held. Thus if I owned or leased 20 acres I can give permission for a cache on those lands.

 

Our local tribes have a mish mash of lands that can be owned, leased (by non members) but not owned, lands that revert to the tribes outside the reservation if they stop being used for thier purpose. They also have a tresspass fee for non members that could apply to cachers even if I placed a cache on my own property. Permission on lands owned by the Tribes would come from the Business Council who rotate members like a books pages blowing in the winds. Permission given this election cycle could be essentially forgotten by all the new membes next election. The Tribes tend to vote out incumbants. The Tribes here tend not to delegate authority so tribal land managers would not be able to give permission, and the head of their land agency may be replaced at any time due to political winds even if they did give permission. Other tribes will differ.

[+Team RedHawk]

Local Arizona aprover is Artemis. If you look at ther user profile for the hider the only cache they found was their own.

 

Hawk

Team RedHawk

[+Renegade Knight]

I was considering this cache on our trip out west next week:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...62-34b00df72b49

 

The cache is located on an Indian Reservation near the western Grand Canyon. The most recent log on the cache actually makes it seem like the cache is not supposed to be here and that the geocacher who placed it there does NOT have permission for it to be there. I certainly don't want to get myself into any trouble. Should this be archived?

 

I tried to email the cache owner, but my mail was returned...

 

YodaDoe

Raleigh, NC

To answer your question, you did what you were supposed to do. IF you have reason to believe it should be removed, use the Should Be Archived Log option. That will get the attention of the site.

 

You do seem to be speculating on the viability of the cache though, and don't have specific knowledge to make a direct decision. If you really want to pursue this, report it to the Arizona cachers group and let them figure it out.

[Jeremy]

Why don't you ask the cache listing owner?

[+Criminal]

Uh, is it any of your business? If you don't want to look for it, skip it and go on to the next.

[+ChileHead]

Uh, is it any of your business? If you don't want to look for it, skip it and go on to the next.

It is. If caches are placed illegally, I believe we all have a responsibility to correct it. Illegally placed caches lead to bans, like the recently banned caches in cemeteries in (? where was it?).

[+Criminal]

Uh, is it any of your business?  If you don't want to look for it, skip it and go on to the next.

It is. If caches are placed illegally, I believe we all have a responsibility to correct it. Illegally placed caches lead to bans, like the recently banned caches in cemeteries in (? where was it?).

I believe we don't. If you can't work it out with the cache owner via email then MYODB. Ban in cemeteries? Good. Where are you going to hide an ammo can or lock&lock in a cemetery anyhow?

[+Cardinal Red]

Jeremy Posted on Jul 12 2005, 05:22 PM

Why don't you ask the cache listing owner?

 

YodaDoe Posted: Jul 12 2005, 04:17 PM

I tried to email the cache owner, but my mail was returned...

[Jeremy]

Ah. I missed that. It would be nice if someone would adopt the listing, I suppose. At the bare minimum the listing should have an active owner.

 

Actually, the user has a web site posted at the top. use one of the contact links there.

 

(edit: the user does have a web site)

Edited July 12, 2005 by Jeremy

[+Criminal]

Jeremy Posted on Jul 12 2005, 05:22 PM

Why don't you ask the cache listing owner?

 

YodaDoe Posted: Jul 12 2005, 04:17 PM

I tried to email the cache owner, but my mail was returned...

Then your mission is complete, have a nice day, please drive through.

[+Team Perks]

Ah. I missed that. It would be nice if someone would adopt the listing, I suppose. At the bare minimum the listing should have an active owner.

Pardon me for posting off-topic here, but I was pleasantly surprised this morning to see the new "adopt" feature on the website. It's so much easier to adopt a cache now assuming that the current owner approves. Thanks!

 

Back on topic...

 

My own opinion is that, before any action be taken with the cache, the last finder could easily be pumped for info. As I referenced above, it's pretty obvious that a permit WAS required to be in that area (one which seems to be quite easy to obtain)...so if the last finders didn't bother getting the required permit, then it seems pretty cut-and-dry. They screwed up, and they got caught without a permit. Case closed.

 

On the other hand, if they DID purchase a permit to be on the land, and they were still asked to leave the area, then the possibility of this being a matter of illegal placement is reasonable and (since the issue has been raised) an approver's involvement might be warranted.

[+sbell111]

...On the other hand, if they DID purchase a permit to be on the land, and they were still asked to leave the area, then the possibility of this being a matter of illegal placement is reasonable and (since the issue has been raised) an approver's involvement might be warranted.

... or the people that asked them did not have any authority.

 

Personally, I'm leaning towards their not paying the $16 bucks (or whatever it is today) to be there.

[+YodaDoe]

In reply to several posts at once:

 

I am not trying to be some meddlesome goody-goody, here. But I do believe caches like this that may be a problem (and I say "may" because it could be perfectly okay) should be noticed and checked out. First of all, it reflects badly on the whole sport if non-geocachers (or Native American Tribes) find people poking around on their land without permission. Second, if I or any other geocacher were caught unawares while hunting this cache, we could be hassled, fined, arrested, shot, etc... These two reasons are why I am making it my business to check this out.

 

Everyone who's been around here very long knows that a lot of cache owners don't actually get the permission that they are supposed to get. For example, here in Raleigh, NC, there is a chunk of forest owned by NC State University's Forestry Department that is open to the public for hiking and all that. Recently, a bunch of caches were reported by the NC State people because none of them were supposed to be there. None of them had permission. So just because it's there doesn't mean it should be there.

 

The South Carolina legislature was the one trying to ban caching in cemeteries, but it wasn't just that. The bill was actually trying to completely ban the use of GPS receivers of all kinds in a large number of places, including parks, historic sites, and some entire towns. While that is obviously not going to pass into law, the fact that it has been proposed at all should tell us all something about how lightly we should tread.

 

The specific reasons I brought this subject to the forum are:

1. Most recent log states that the person was hassled by a local.

2. Cache owner appears to be inexperienced and cannot be reached.

3. I am not sure what we're supposed to do in situations like this (especially with regard to Reservations).

4. I haven't yet heard back from the two previous finders whom I emailed.

 

For what it's worth, the cache is located at the Quartermaster Viewpoint, which is an observation point for the western end of the Grand Canyon before it becomes Lake Mead and later, Hoover Dam. There is a road leading up there and it's a tourist destination, marked in my Road Atlas. So it's not like the location is out in the middle of nowhere. People come through there. But it does appear there may be some restrictions about going off onto side roads. I plan to go up there to see the Canyon next week and wanted to find out if it needs to be archived and removed. If so, I could do the removing, since I'm going up there anyway. (But only if the admins. and reviewers say so.)

 

Anyway, thanks for the information, everyone!

[+sbell111]

I think you've done your bit. There is no reason for you to become the cache cop for the entire US. Let the locals handle it.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Why don't you ask the cache listing owner?

Probably the same reason the other 2,358 members of the cache police don't either. That's all we seem to get on here anymore:

 

How did this cache get approved?!

 

And, oh yeah...

 

We need a rule for <insert situation here>

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

YodaDoe,

 

The only fees I could find reference to other than NPS entrance fees for the Grand Canyon, is as follows:

 

Quote -

Permits: A permit must be purchased for all trips off paved roads and in 2002 these cost $5 per day for day trips or $10 for camping. They are available in Peach Springs at the Wildlife Preservation Office or the Hualapai Lodge, which also has information about raft trips and guided tours.

- end quote.

 

Sorry it is outdated, but once a fee is instituted it is not likely ever to be removed....just raised.

 

John

[+shawhh]

Uh, is it any of your business?  If you don't want to look for it, skip it and go on to the next.

i didn't see where he was trying to police the cache, just asking if he was going to get in trouble if he sought the cache. this is a valid worry if the cache owner placed a cache on private land without permission. when this is done, the cache placer has, in effect, laid a trap for his fellow cachers in that he exposes them to confrontations with landowners, and possibly being arrested for trespassing. place a cache in a public place (a place or venue the public has a reasonable expectation to be) then i don't care if you did or did not actually talk to the powers that be (unless there is a specific ordinance regarding caching), but in this instance the cacher is merely trying to obtain information regarding his liability in seeking this cache. -harry

Edited July 13, 2005 by shawhh

[Yankees Win!]

That's all we seem to get on here anymore:

 

How did this cache get approved?!

 

And, oh yeah...

I hope you would agree that it is preferable having people raise their concerns in forums such as this one than to become vigilantes, taking matters into their own hands.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Yankees Win!

[+welch]

 

I tried to email the cache owner, but my mail was returned...

 

Post an SBA with a short note about what you want looked it and what you've done , and then forget about it.

(the owner hasn't logged in since last may, got to response to an email. the cache page needs updated, the container seems to need replaced/fixed. oh and log XX says they were questioned by local)

[+Criminal]

Uh, is it any of your business?  If you don't want to look for it, skip it and go on to the next.

i didn't see where he was trying to police the cache, just asking if he was going to get in trouble if he sought the cache. this is a valid worry if the cache owner placed a cache on private land without permission. when this is done, the cache placer has, in effect, laid a trap for his fellow cachers in that he exposes them to confrontations with landowners, and possibly being arrested for trespassing. place a cache in a public place (a place or venue the public has a reasonable expectation to be) then i don't care if you did or did not actually talk to the powers that be (unless there is a specific ordinance regarding caching), but in this instance the cacher is merely trying to obtain information regarding his liability in seeking this cache. -harry

I never claimed he was trying to “police” anything; in fact, I never even used that word. The only problem I have with your logic here is that geocachers have been questioned or harassed even when all proper permission was obtained.

 

This is another in a long line of forum threads that start with “How did this cache get approved?” The fact is that it was approved, so someone looked at it and determined it was good. You or I, with far less information to make a proper assessment, have no business trying to re-approve a cache we will likely never see or hunt. We see this often in these types of threads, someone complains, everyone gets worked into a lather over it, then we find out the rest of the story, which is actually a non-story.

 

My point is this, take responsibility for your actions. If you, with your purpose and reason, determine a risk (legal, physical, or whatever) is too great for the given return, look for ways to mitigate that risk. If it means skipping that cache, then that is your best course of action. Please don’t assume you (collective you) have some responsibility to second guess the approvers or apply your standards to another’s cache.

[+legal1]

Since the cache is obviously on the reservation, I'm sure the approver played 20 questions with the cache owner before listing it.  Just because 'somebody' wasn't aware of that approval doesn't meen it doesn't exist.

 

If you are concerned, take the cache off your list of ones to visit while you are in the neighborhood.

Very well said!

[+Renegade Knight]

In reply to several posts at once:

 

I am not trying to be some meddlesome goody-goody, here. But I do believe caches like this that may be a problem (and I say "may" because it could be perfectly okay) should be noticed and checked out. First of all, it reflects badly on the whole sport if non-geocachers (or Native American Tribes) find people poking around on their land without permission. Second, if I or any other geocacher were caught unawares while hunting this cache, we could be hassled, fined, arrested, shot, etc... These two reasons are why I am making it my business to check this out....

 

for what it's worth, the cache is located at the Quartermaster Viewpoint, which is an observation point for the western end of the Grand Canyon before it becomes Lake Mead and later, Hoover Dam. ...

If I got permission, paid my tresspass fee and placed my cache I'm good to go. If all finders after me didn't, well...that's for them and the courts to decide if the fee is legal, or worth paying. It's up to the cache seeker to comply with the law. That's you.

1. Most recent log states that the person was hassled by a local.

If this particular reservation isn't calling it a "Tresspass Fee" and they call it an "Access Permit" it's all the same. If a Tribal Member was asking, odds are they do have some sort of non member fee they want to charge people who visit. This is one way reservations differ from states. Wyoming doesn't chage me to visit. Arizona does for certain state lands, where other Western states with trust lands don't. It's a local political thing that the cache seeker should know. If they were there visting and there was no cache they issue is the same and it's not the cache.

2. Cache owner appears to be inexperienced and cannot be reached.

Use their website as Jeremy suggested. I've found experienced cache finders don't know much either at time when it comes to seeking my caches. It's all relative.

3. I am not sure what we're supposed to do in situations like this (especially with regard to Reservations).

If they have a tresspass fee, pay the fee. These are not uncommon in reservations. Tribes are taking advantage of their political situation. Charging a tresspass fee is one way to make a point.

 

Also Tribes are under the same legal obligation to preserve and protect our natural scenery and heratage as state and local agencies who use and recieve federal money. Part of that could be access to these locations. The tresspass fee would kick in if you were off the main roads etc. Again it brings you back to how the Tribes have chosen to implement it. In all honesty you could be in over your head.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

That's all we seem to get on here anymore:

 

How did this cache get approved?!

 

And, oh yeah...

I hope you would agree that it is preferable having people raise their concerns in forums such as this one than to become vigilantes, taking matters into their own hands.

Yes I would agree. Arguments and debates over these types of things do slowly help a community standard evolve.

[+Sonoran Privateers]

Uh, is it any of your business?  If you don't want to look for it, skip it and go on to the next.

i didn't see where he was trying to police the cache, just asking if he was going to get in trouble if he sought the cache. this is a valid worry if the cache owner placed a cache on private land without permission. when this is done, the cache placer has, in effect, laid a trap for his fellow cachers in that he exposes them to confrontations with landowners, and possibly being arrested for trespassing. place a cache in a public place (a place or venue the public has a reasonable expectation to be) then i don't care if you did or did not actually talk to the powers that be (unless there is a specific ordinance regarding caching), but in this instance the cacher is merely trying to obtain information regarding his liability in seeking this cache. -harry

I never claimed he was trying to “police” anything; in fact, I never even used that word. The only problem I have with your logic here is that geocachers have been questioned or harassed even when all proper permission was obtained.

 

This is another in a long line of forum threads that start with “How did this cache get approved?” The fact is that it was approved, so someone looked at it and determined it was good. You or I, with far less information to make a proper assessment, have no business trying to re-approve a cache we will likely never see or hunt. We see this often in these types of threads, someone complains, everyone gets worked into a lather over it, then we find out the rest of the story, which is actually a non-story.

 

My point is this, take responsibility for your actions. If you, with your purpose and reason, determine a risk (legal, physical, or whatever) is too great for the given return, look for ways to mitigate that risk. If it means skipping that cache, then that is your best course of action. Please don’t assume you (collective you) have some responsibility to second guess the approvers or apply your standards to another’s cache.

It seems to me that you're the only one getting worked into a lather here. OP was just asking a question.

[+sbell111]

I'm the one who made the 'cache cop' comment, not my e'steamed' colleague. I made the comment in reference to this statement:

I plan to go up there to see the Canyon next week and wanted to find out if it needs to be archived and removed. If so, I could do the removing, since I'm going up there anyway.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

That's all we seem to get on here anymore:

 

How did this cache get approved?!

 

And, oh yeah...

I hope you would agree that it is preferable having people raise their concerns in forums such as this one than to become vigilantes, taking matters into their own hands.

I do agree. However, I also think it is better yet to contact the cache owner, and failing that, to contact the local cache approver or flag the cache "should be archived" with a note as to why and let the owner and approver straighten it out. This is exactly what I did when I found this location clearly inside of Shenandoah National Park. It was taken care of WITHOUT a public inquisition.

Edited July 14, 2005 by ParrotRob

[+Criminal]

Uh, is it any of your business?  If you don't want to look for it, skip it and go on to the next.

i didn't see where he was trying to police the cache, just asking if he was going to get in trouble if he sought the cache. this is a valid worry if the cache owner placed a cache on private land without permission. when this is done, the cache placer has, in effect, laid a trap for his fellow cachers in that he exposes them to confrontations with landowners, and possibly being arrested for trespassing. place a cache in a public place (a place or venue the public has a reasonable expectation to be) then i don't care if you did or did not actually talk to the powers that be (unless there is a specific ordinance regarding caching), but in this instance the cacher is merely trying to obtain information regarding his liability in seeking this cache. -harry

I never claimed he was trying to “police” anything; in fact, I never even used that word. The only problem I have with your logic here is that geocachers have been questioned or harassed even when all proper permission was obtained.

 

This is another in a long line of forum threads that start with “How did this cache get approved?” The fact is that it was approved, so someone looked at it and determined it was good. You or I, with far less information to make a proper assessment, have no business trying to re-approve a cache we will likely never see or hunt. We see this often in these types of threads, someone complains, everyone gets worked into a lather over it, then we find out the rest of the story, which is actually a non-story.

 

My point is this, take responsibility for your actions. If you, with your purpose and reason, determine a risk (legal, physical, or whatever) is too great for the given return, look for ways to mitigate that risk. If it means skipping that cache, then that is your best course of action. Please don’t assume you (collective you) have some responsibility to second guess the approvers or apply your standards to another’s cache.

It seems to me that you're the only one getting worked into a lather here. OP was just asking a question.

Exactly, and what was the question?

 

Was this cache illegally placed? It is not his cache and thus it is none of his/her business.

 

Stick around a while; after you’ve been here long enough you’ll notice this come up over and over.

[+Ambrosia]

Just a reminder to everybody:

 

You know, we have had some people in here recently who really were cache cops, and were riling everyone up. The problem is that when someone who seems genuinely nice comes in here and askes a question out of their genuine concern, they get treated roughly. I think that we need to take each person on their own merit and on their own questions and give them the respect that they deserve, regardless of how many other people have posted this question in the past.

 

The OP had a concern. They thought that if they were told by gc.com that the cache should be archived (for whatever the reason), they would be in the area and could clean it out. I don't see that as being a cache cop, but as trying to do the sport a favor.

 

Let's not run away nice people. Only the ones that are obvious trolls.

[+shawhh]

Uh, is it any of your business?  If you don't want to look for it, skip it and go on to the next.

i didn't see where he was trying to police the cache, just asking if he was going to get in trouble if he sought the cache. this is a valid worry if the cache owner placed a cache on private land without permission. when this is done, the cache placer has, in effect, laid a trap for his fellow cachers in that he exposes them to confrontations with landowners, and possibly being arrested for trespassing. place a cache in a public place (a place or venue the public has a reasonable expectation to be) then i don't care if you did or did not actually talk to the powers that be (unless there is a specific ordinance regarding caching), but in this instance the cacher is merely trying to obtain information regarding his liability in seeking this cache. -harry

I never claimed he was trying to “police” anything; in fact, I never even used that word. The only problem I have with your logic here is that geocachers have been questioned or harassed even when all proper permission was obtained.

 

This is another in a long line of forum threads that start with “How did this cache get approved?” The fact is that it was approved, so someone looked at it and determined it was good. You or I, with far less information to make a proper assessment, have no business trying to re-approve a cache we will likely never see or hunt. We see this often in these types of threads, someone complains, everyone gets worked into a lather over it, then we find out the rest of the story, which is actually a non-story.

 

My point is this, take responsibility for your actions. If you, with your purpose and reason, determine a risk (legal, physical, or whatever) is too great for the given return, look for ways to mitigate that risk. If it means skipping that cache, then that is your best course of action. Please don’t assume you (collective you) have some responsibility to second guess the approvers or apply your standards to another’s cache.

It seems to me that you're the only one getting worked into a lather here. OP was just asking a question.

Exactly, and what was the question?

 

Was this cache illegally placed? It is not his cache and thus it is none of his/her business.

 

Stick around a while; after you’ve been here long enough you’ll notice this come up over and over.

is it his business if it was illegally placed? it sure is if he attempts to find the cache and winds up on the receiving end of an irate landowner or the local law! you state that it is all about personal responsibility and i agree 100%. the cache hider has the personal responsibility to place the cache in an area that can be legally accessed. there is a bond of trust between the cache hider and the cache seeker in that the cache seeker assumes that the cache hider placed the cache in a place open to the caching public. the reviewer has an element of responsiblity to, as much as is possible, ensure that the cache meets the site's guidlines, but since he relies mostly on the information provided by the cache hider, mistakes can and have been made. the cache seeker has the responsibility to exercise good judgement in seeking the cache. if the cache is obviously on private land and the cache seeker feels that permission was not obtained, then he must abandon the hunt. however, especially for the cacher not on his home ground, it may not always be clear where the line is drawn. he may inadvertently trespass to a cache assuming that the cache hider and the reviewer have held up their end of the bargain. i can assure you that this is not always the case. in my local area this has recently resulted in a pretty ugly confrontation between a landowner and a cacher seeking a cache placed on private land without permission that got listed on this site. yeah, it is all about personal responsibility, but there is more than one person involved who must exercise some personal responsiblity.

 

-harry

[+Sonoran Privateers]

Just a reminder to everybody:

 

You know, we have had some people in here recently who really were cache cops, and were riling everyone up. The problem is that when someone who seems genuinely nice comes in here and askes a question out of their genuine concern, they get treated roughly. I think that we need to take each person on their own merit and on their own questions and give them the respect that they deserve, regardless of how many other people have posted this question in the past.

 

The OP had a concern. They thought that if they were told by gc.com that the cache should be archived (for whatever the reason), they would be in the area and could clean it out. I don't see that as being a cache cop, but as trying to do the sport a favor.

 

Let's not run away nice people. Only the ones that are obvious trolls.

Exactly!

 

Perhaps this topic has come up a bazillion times before. For the OP, it's the first time.

 

The OP posted the question/concern in GOOD FAITH that people here would treat him with respect and dignity. That's what a forum is for: getting answers to your questions.

 

If someone is so tired of seeing the same things come up in the forum that they can't be nice and helpful, perhaps that someone should find something else to do with their time.

 

If you can't say something nice.....

[+Criminal]

There was no disrespect, the OP asked the question and I advised they mind their own business. That is still the best advice. Life is all about taking chances, you take a huge one just getting into your car to drive to the cache location. Those of us who enjoy the challenge and adventure of the game don’t want busybodies trying to dumb it down to the first grade level.

[+teamjack&birdie]

If someone is so tired of seeing the same things come up in the forum that they can't be nice and helpful, perhaps that someone should find something else to do with their time.

 

If you can't say something nice.....

 

THANK YOU! This behavior is shameful, we all can get testy everyonce in awhile, but there is a general rudeness that is just uncalled for.

[+shawhh]

There was no disrespect, the OP asked the question and I advised they mind their own business. That is still the best advice. Life is all about taking chances, you take a huge one just getting into your car to drive to the cache location. Those of us who enjoy the challenge and adventure of the game don’t want busybodies trying to dumb it down to the first grade level.

i too like the adventure and the challenge of the game, but fail to see how inquiring if a cache is placed on private land without permission is dumbing the game down to the first grade level unless you enjoy the challenge of trespassing and the resultant adventure of dealing with irate landowners and possibly law enforcement officials and then of course there is the courtroom adventure. no one said that the cache was too hard, or too challenging, just that it appeared to be on private land and that it possibly was not legally placed. it is very difficult to convey tone in an internet forum, but your initial response sure seemed disrespectful to me and apparently to some other forum readers. in reading other posts of yours regarding similar, though not identical, threads i have often agreed with your stand. however, it is a growing issue in that as the game grows we must exercise our personal responsibility not only as cache seekers, but as cache owners if we don't want increased regulation forced upon us by a less knowlegeable public. make a cache as hard physically or mentally as you like, but place it responsibly in a place that your fellow cachers can seek it out without looking over their shoulders all the time for trouble. -harry

[+Criminal]

There was no disrespect, the OP asked the question and I advised they mind their own business.  That is still the best advice.  Life is all about taking chances, you take a huge one just getting into your car to drive to the cache location.  Those of us who enjoy the challenge and adventure of the game don’t want busybodies trying to dumb it down to the first grade level.

i too like the adventure and the challenge of the game, but fail to see how inquiring if a cache is placed on private land without permission is dumbing the game down to the first grade level unless you enjoy the challenge of trespassing and the resultant adventure of dealing with irate landowners and possibly law enforcement officials and then of course there is the courtroom adventure. no one said that the cache was too hard, or too challenging, just that it appeared to be on private land and that it possibly was not legally placed. it is very difficult to convey tone in an internet forum, but your initial response sure seemed disrespectful to me and apparently to some other forum readers. in reading other posts of yours regarding similar, though not identical, threads i have often agreed with your stand. however, it is a growing issue in that as the game grows we must exercise our personal responsibility not only as cache seekers, but as cache owners if we don't want increased regulation forced upon us by a less knowlegeable public. make a cache as hard physically or mentally as you like, but place it responsibly in a place that your fellow cachers can seek it out without looking over their shoulders all the time for trouble. -harry

The place to inquire about whether or not the cache is on private land is with the cache owner or the land owner, not here.

 

We are all different, I would have handled it differently and that is what my advice is based on.

 

If I come upon a cache that I think might be on private land in violation of the guidelines, I would find it (in stealth mode) and notify the cache owner of my concerns. I might put my question in my found or DNF log. Beyond that, it's not my business to try to second guess the cache owner or the approver.

 

The phrase "mind your own business" can be interpreted in several different tones, mine was not meant to belittle or disrespect the OP, it's just the advice most appropriate.

Edited July 15, 2005 by Criminal

[+deimos444]

Is this thread a filibuster?

There probably are no stupid questions.

Or am I being a dumbhead again?

[+shawhh]

There was no disrespect, the OP asked the question and I advised they mind their own business.  That is still the best advice.  Life is all about taking chances, you take a huge one just getting into your car to drive to the cache location.  Those of us who enjoy the challenge and adventure of the game don’t want busybodies trying to dumb it down to the first grade level.

i too like the adventure and the challenge of the game, but fail to see how inquiring if a cache is placed on private land without permission is dumbing the game down to the first grade level unless you enjoy the challenge of trespassing and the resultant adventure of dealing with irate landowners and possibly law enforcement officials and then of course there is the courtroom adventure. no one said that the cache was too hard, or too challenging, just that it appeared to be on private land and that it possibly was not legally placed. it is very difficult to convey tone in an internet forum, but your initial response sure seemed disrespectful to me and apparently to some other forum readers. in reading other posts of yours regarding similar, though not identical, threads i have often agreed with your stand. however, it is a growing issue in that as the game grows we must exercise our personal responsibility not only as cache seekers, but as cache owners if we don't want increased regulation forced upon us by a less knowlegeable public. make a cache as hard physically or mentally as you like, but place it responsibly in a place that your fellow cachers can seek it out without looking over their shoulders all the time for trouble. -harry

The place to inquire about whether or not the cache is on private land is with the cache owner or the land owner, not here.

 

We are all different, I would have handled it differently and that is what my advice is based on.

 

If I come upon a cache that I think might be on private land in violation of the guidelines, I would find it (in stealth mode) and notify the cache owner of my concerns. I might put my question in my found or DNF log. Beyond that, it's not my business to try to second guess the cache owner or the approver.

 

The phrase "mind your own business" can be interpreted in several different tones, mine was not meant to belittle or disrespect the OP, it's just the advice most appropriate.

now we are getting somewhere. i agree that it would have been best to contact the cache owner (it was tried) and failing that, or along with that, contact the landowner.

 

yes, we are all different and that influences our behavior. i am a landowner as well as a geocacher and that definitely colors my attitude towards trespassing!

 

so, as regards your handling of this kind of situation, i agree with you in all respects except that once you determine the cache to be on private land with questionable permission, there is no good reason, only excuses, as to why you should continue to seek the cache prior to ascertaining if indeed the public has a right to be on said property. i have, on more than one occasion posted my dnf and said in my log that the reason i failed to find the cache was that i couldn't find a public access to the property. in my opinion, and that is what it is, trespassing on private land is evidence of a blatant disrespect towards the landowner, and a disregard of the law as it is written regarding private ownership.

 

mind your own business is excellent advice in most instances, but unless we handle our business in a responsible manner, others will step in to handle it for us. every time we trespass to find a cache, or place a cache on private property on which the public has no reasonable expectation to come, we give ammunition to those who would legislate us out of the game.

 

-harry

Edited July 15, 2005 by shawhh

[+Sonoran Privateers]

The place to inquire about whether or not the cache is on private land is with the cache owner or the land owner, not here.

 

This is an open forum. I'm pretty sure this is the place to enquire about pretty much anything you want related to geocaching. That's what it's here for.

[Yankees Win!]

The place to inquire about whether or not the cache is on private land is with the cache owner or the land owner, not here.

You're joking, of course. The contact information for the cache owner was invalid, as it frequently is on older, abandoned caches. Contact information for land owner/land manager/whoever supposedly gave permission for the cache to be placed doesn't appear on cache pages. There is no master list of volunteer reviewers and the territories they oversee posted publicly. That leaves these forums as the best place to raise concerns and receive timely advice.

Edited July 15, 2005 by Yankees Win!

[+Renegade Knight]

...The contact information for the cache owner was invalid, as it frequently is on older, abandoned caches. Contact information for land owner/land manager/whoever supposedly gave permission for the cache to be placed doesn't appear on cache pages. There is no master list of volunteer reviewers and the territories they oversee posted publicly. That leaves these forums as the best place to raise concerns and receive timely advice.

First you contact the cache owner. Second. You contact the site. You can discuss anything you want in the forums but there is no real authority in here for actual issues. We kabitz and that's it.

 

The reason not to contact the landowner in general is the right hand and left hand thing. Any agency can give permission, but the person who did might be the parks superintendent, then when you ask you get the event coordinator who doesn't know jack and is annoyed that an event was taking place and the fee's and forms were not filled out along with the reservation... No I'm not kidding about that last part. Unless you are tight with the land owner I'd go through the cache owner and site and call it a day.

[+sbell111]

...yes, we are all different and that influences our behavior.  i am a landowner as well as a geocacher and that definitely colors my attitude towards trespassing! 

...

Hmm. I'm a landowner and I disagree with a number of things you have posted in this thread.

 

A person has a concern about a cache in an area far away from his local area. He tried to contact the owner, but failed. At that point, it would have been best to get the area approver involved, but he didn't. Instead, he brought it directly to the forums where he offered to remove the cache as he will be visiting the area soon.

 

As far as I'm concerned, YodaDoe should take no further action regarding this issue. After this thread, I'm sure that the local approver and the local cachers are aware if the situation. They can take whatever further action is necessary.

Edited July 15, 2005 by sbell111

[+Sonoran Privateers]

...yes, we are all different and that influences our behavior.  i am a landowner as well as a geocacher and that definitely colors my attitude towards trespassing! 

...

Hmm. I'm a landowner and I disagree with a number of things you have posted in this thread.

 

A person has a concern about a cache in an area far away from his local area. He tried to contact the owner, but failed. At that point, it would have been best to get the area approver involved, but he didn't. Instead, he brought it directly to the forums where he offered to remove the cache as he will be visiting the area soon.

 

As far as I'm concerned, YodaDoe should take no further action regarding this issue. After this thread, I'm sure that the local approver and the local cachers are aware if the situation. They can take whatever further action is necessary.

But, at least he came to this forum before taking it upon himself to remove the cache. That's why the environment here needs to remain as permissive as possible. If people are going to come in here and just get ridiculed, they won't come. They'll just do whatever they think is right, instead of seeking guidance. In this case, OP would have just gone out and removed the cache. Instead, he sought other folk's opinions, got them, and will probably leave it alone.

 

Of course, he will probably never post in the forums again after the warm reception he received.

[+sbell111]

...Of course, he will probably never post in the forums again after the warm reception he received.

The first several posts were helpful and on-point. You might also note that original poster has well over 100 posts. He's not a tadpole.

[+shawhh]

...yes, we are all different and that influences our behavior.  i am a landowner as well as a geocacher and that definitely colors my attitude towards trespassing! 

...

Hmm. I'm a landowner and I disagree with a number of things you have posted in this thread.

 

A person has a concern about a cache in an area far away from his local area. He tried to contact the owner, but failed. At that point, it would have been best to get the area approver involved, but he didn't. Instead, he brought it directly to the forums where he offered to remove the cache as he will be visiting the area soon.

 

As far as I'm concerned, YodaDoe should take no further action regarding this issue. After this thread, I'm sure that the local approver and the local cachers are aware if the situation. They can take whatever further action is necessary.

care to elaborate? who knows, perhaps you'll convince me that trespassing is an ok thing to do when searching for a cache, or perhaps that the only one with any personal responsibility in this activity is the cache hunter, or that rudeness when answering a post is acceptable behavior. please! -harry

Edited July 15, 2005 by shawhh

[+sbell111]

OK, I'll bite.

who knows, perhaps you'll convince me that trespassing is an ok thing to do when searching for a cache

This thread has never been about tresspassing. The location that it is in is accessible if you pay a fee. It is legal for me to be there as a finder whether or not the cache owner obtained approval to have his cache placed there.

or perhaps that the only one with any personal responsibility in this activity is the cache hunter

It is not the personal responsibility of every cache hunter to police every cache placed on the planet. Please read my other posts.

or that rudeness when answering a post is acceptable behavior.

Again, please read my other posts. The first several responders gave good advice in a balanced manner. Some responders (me included) gave their blunt opinions. This is why we have forums. Edited July 16, 2005 by sbell111

[+shawhh]

OK, I'll bite.

who knows, perhaps you'll convince me that trespassing is an ok thing to do when searching for a cache

This thread has never been about tresspassing. The location that it is in is accessible if you pay a fee. It is legal for me to be there as a finder whether or not the cache owner obtained approval to have his cache placed there.

or perhaps that the only one with any personal responsibility in this activity is the cache hunter

It is not the personal responsibility of every cache hunter to police every cache placed on the planet. Please read my other posts.

or that rudeness when answering a post is acceptable behavior.

Again, please read my other posts. The first several responders gave good advice in a balanced manner. Some responders (me included) gave their blunt opinions. This is why we have forums.

the op asked if he would get into trouble if he sought the cache in question as a previous hunter had been hassled. now i do not agree that a cacher should take it upon himself to try to archive a cache based on incomplete information, but he certainly was addressing the possiblity of trespassing in his question. if i am guilty of anything in this regard it is in expanding on the question of placing caches illegally on private land. most of my posts in this regard were in response to another posters comments. i don't think i'll apologize for my feelings in this matter.

 

alright, point two. i never said that every cacher should become the cache police for every cache. i pointed out that in my opinion there is responsibility on several levels, and that a breakdown in any one can lead to confrontations that may be less than pleasant if the cache is placed on private land without permission. if you thought i suggested that we start nitpicking each and every cache then either you misunderstood my intent or i didn't make myself clear. my posts in this regard were addressing personal responsibility.

 

point three. yes, the first couple of posts were helpful, and i found no real offense in your "blunt" posting. however, i did find the "uh, is it any of your business." comment to be beyond blunt. if you didn't think it was rude, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

thanks for your time.

 

-harry

Edited July 16, 2005 by shawhh