Cache Dutch 1 Deleted

[Telly Savalas]

some Forest ranger and a local in Scotland have removed my cache (Dutch 1 in Scotland) because the ranger had some minimal complaints about the locaction of the cache.

This is absolutely ridiculous as this cache does not do any harm at all. Lots of people have visited the cache over the years and they all have had a lot of fun and based on their logs no harm was done to nature.

 

Now some local guy Lactodorum a UK Admin or so, has talked to this ranger and they have decided , without letting me in on the decision, to remove the cache.

 

I think this is not the way to go. I have requested Lactodorum to unarchive the cache and put the cache back if the took it.

So many memories flushed by some overachieving little ranger and a bored admin.

 

If the cache doesn't come back , i'm out together with my other caches and plans for future caches.

 

Thank you.

 

Telly Savalas

Edited July 15, 2005 by Telly Savalas

[+Criminal]

Maybe Harry Potter can wave his wand and fix that for you. Other than that, there's not much anyone in the forums can do.

[+Nurse Dave]

Heh, so the ranger should ask you if it's okay to remove your cache?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Heh, so the ranger should ask you if it's okay to remove your cache?

I think the OP's point was that the rangeer and the admin didn't involve the cache owner in deciding to remove the cache.

 

 

 

I don't know if that's how it really happened or not, but that's how the OP wrote it.

[+jon & miki]

If the ranger is responsible for the land area you placed the cache in, then it seems to me he has the authority to have it removed if he finds it objectionable for any reason. If you had permission to place the cache there in the first place, you might be able to negotiate with him directly.

 

If you do not currently have "adequate permission" (and it certainly sounds like the ranger has withdrawn any permission you might have had), Lactodorum had no choice but to archive the cache per geocaching.com guidelines. I don't think the ranger's feelings will be hurt if you withdraw from the sport and pull all your caches, but you will remove any chance the rest of us (who had absolutely no involvement in this) to ever enjoy finding any of your caches.

 

Jon

[+Marky]

This kind of thing happens now and then and has happened to at least one of my caches. It's nothing to get bent out of shape about. Just be happy that your cache was enjoyed while it was out there. Cache on!

 

--Marky

[Jeremy]

So many memories flushed by some overachieving little ranger and a bored admin.

Use some diplomacy in the future and perhaps things will go differently next time.

[+Tharagleb]

This seems pretty cut and dried as to what happened

 

July 14 by Lactodorum (0 found)

I have archived this cache at the landowner's request. Would the cache owner please contact me (lactodorum@gmail.com) so that I can explain more fully.

[view this log on a separate page]

July 14 by Haggis Hunter (330 found)

I went for a walk up Merrick, on my way back down I met a ranger from the Forestry Commission. He was very pro-geocaching and came along to do this cache with me. Sadly this cache is not a good advert, espescially with The Forestry Commission. The only details on the cache page about saying not to touch the stones, (which are in fact a dry stane wall) is in fact listed with one of the photographs. Which doesn't download with a PQ and is easily missed.

Due to the fact that the ranger and myself searched for a while and didn't find it, we felt that the wall would get damaged due to further searches by other people, he has asked for this cache to be archived. I will be forwarding the rangers details onto the approvers, as they would like to be informed when caches are placed in the forest.

 

HH

[+TotemLake]

So many memories flushed by some overachieving little ranger and a bored admin.

Use some diplomacy in the future and perhaps things will go differently next time.

Tharagleb Posted on Jul 15 2005, 10:14 AM

  This seems pretty cut and dried as to what happened

 

July 14 by Lactodorum (0 found)

I have archived this cache at the landowner's request. Would the cache owner please contact me (lactodorum@gmail.com) so that I can explain more fully.

[view this log on a separate page]

July 14 by Haggis Hunter (330 found)

I went for a walk up Merrick, on my way back down I met a ranger from the Forestry Commission. He was very pro-geocaching and came along to do this cache with me. Sadly this cache is not a good advert, espescially with The Forestry Commission. The only details on the cache page about saying not to touch the stones, (which are in fact a dry stane wall) is in fact listed with one of the photographs. Which doesn't download with a PQ and is easily missed.

Due to the fact that the ranger and myself searched for a while and didn't find it, we felt that the wall would get damaged due to further searches by other people, he has asked for this cache to be archived. I will be forwarding the rangers details onto the approvers, as they would like to be informed when caches are placed in the forest.

HH

 

 

If the cache doesn't come back , i'm out together with my other caches and plans for future caches.

 

Thank you.

 

Telly Savalas 

 

I guess you mean to say... goodbye.

 

Feel free to go to this post and pick the appropriate geocide letter or form that best fits your needs.

[Difficult Run]

I second Jon & Miki's opinion. The property is the responsibility of the Ranger.

 

If you want to take your ball and go home, that's fine. Childish, but fine.

 

- Mitch -

[+Marcie/Eric]

Track them down and exact vengence!

 

Or just fuh-get-ugh-bout-it.

 

I do think the admin should have involved you and tried to resolve this issue on behalf of Geocaching everywhere instead of caving and admitting to some possibly non-existant complaints from a stuffy ranger with nothing better to do. Should have talked to that ranger's boss too.

Edited July 15, 2005 by Marcie/Eric

[+sbell111]

Who loves you, baby?

[+dogbreathcanada]

Should have talked to the ranger's boss too.

I think bringing it up with the MP for the area would have been the right course of action, and if that didn't work, bringing Tony Blair into the fray would have been the next move.

 

But seriously ... I think the admin should have discussed possible alternative locations in the area, and then brought those to the table with the cache owner. The admin shouldn't have archived the cache without having retrieved it (unless I missed something, the ranger and admin weren't able to find the cache?) Now that cache will likely never be retrieved (considering the owner is in a snit.)

[+BlueDeuce]

The admin shouldn't have archived the cache without having retrieved it.

Why not? Wasn't the concern searchers might impact the area?

 

As far as I'm concerned this land owner's authority overrode the cache owners.

 

additional note: The ranger's request was sufficient for gc.com to archive it.

 

Waiting to archive until someone talk to someone's boss really is not the first course of action. Caches can be un-archived. Bad park relations are far more impacting.

Edited July 15, 2005 by BlueDeuce

[+dogbreathcanada]

The admin shouldn't have archived the cache without having retrieved it.

Why not? Wasn't the concern searchers might impact the area?

Well, now the concern is cache trash.

[+BlueDeuce]

removed response.

Edited July 15, 2005 by BlueDeuce

[+dogbreathcanada]

As far as I'm concerned this land owner's authority overrode the cache owners.

 

additional note: The ranger's request was sufficient for gc.com to archive it.

I don't disagree with you on either of those.

 

While the admin was with the Ranger, he could have inquired about some nearby locations that would be more appropriate hiding spots. Taken some notes and waypoints and then presented those to the cache owner.

 

The admin could have disabled the cache, instead of archiving it. If the cache owner wasn't amenable to moving the cache to a new location, then archiving would be the proper recourse.

[+BlueDeuce]

gc.com usually doesn't check with me on PR issues. I figure the best thing is to do is talk to the approver or gc.com about any problems that might come up with my cache and voice my concerns to them about how things were handled.

Edited July 15, 2005 by BlueDeuce

[+sbell111]

...

While the admin was with the Ranger, he could have inquired about some nearby locations that would be more appropriate hiding spots. Taken some notes and waypoints and then presented those to the cache owner. ...

I imagine that would completely depend on the nature of the conversation. If the Ranger was hot, such a conversation would be better had later, and in person.

[+TeamAO]

Obviously there was a "reason" to remove this cache. Possibly there was land damage, stepping on plants, or something of that nature. When on property under strict regulation, they want to minimize all "unneccessary" traffic, unfortunately they picked your cache, right or wrong, they decided to get rid of everything they could to slow traffic down off the trails and your cache wasn't high enough on the "must keep" list I guess. I don't know the rules over in Dutch ( The Netherlands) but maybe they have different laws, and one of their laws playeda role in it. Fair or not it happened, and removing your caches would be giving into the people you are mad at obviously. I know that if the cachers here on the forums could do something, they certainly would. I can't do anything from here in Pennsylvania. Too bad. I'm sorry for your loss.

[+treasure_hunter]

They done you wrong, it must have been that muggle side taking over, j/k. They should have let you know.

[PyroDave]

why is it the aprovers job or the rangers job to sugeste other locations. The hider went and hide the cashe assuming that he had the right t do so he didnt go ask if he could. When the park ranger foun about the cache he didnt aprove. Seams realy cut and dry to me. If he wants to rehide it somewhere else then try contacting the park ranger from the copy of the last log i saw he souneded caher freindly and bashing him or the aprover seams to make us look worse. Its neather the arover or the rangers job to rlocate a cache its the cache owners job. The ranger saw a chance that this cache could cause neg impact to the suroundings and you want to argue that it should be left there man get over it he is just trying to protect the things we so much enjoy seeing.

[CoyoteRed]

Sorry, I have to side with gc.com on this one.

 

A couple of issues I'd like to point out. There is a warning which is posted in the photos. It's already been said that the photos do down load in a PQ. This should be a lesson to always put your warning in the description.

 

Second, right or wrong, when a steward asks for a cache to be removed, it's gone. No if's, and's or but's. Period. Your only recourse is to talk to the appropriate folks to get it placed. Then you can re-list it.

 

We have to remember folks, stewards have the final word on any placement. We pursue our hobby only at the good graces of those who oversee the land we place caches. Without, there would be no geocaching.

[+briansnat]

The admin could have disabled the cache, instead of archiving it. If the cache owner wasn't amenable to moving the cache to a new location, then archiving would be the proper recourse.

 

Most land managers want the cache removed from the website. The cache will still show in searches if its just disabled which might not be good enough for them.

 

They done you wrong, it must have been that muggle side taking over, j/k. They should have let you know

 

They did let him know:

 

"July 14 by Lactodorum (0 found)

I have archived this cache at the landowner's request. Would the cache owner please contact me (lactodorum@gmail.com) so that I can explain more fully."

Edited July 16, 2005 by briansnat