Caching Will Cease To Exist As We Know It

[+GeoLite69]

big rocky will be assisting me with posting this new info that we need some help with,we have been mislead by our city parks contact and now they want all these rules set in place that are ludicruis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

caching will cease to exist

[Click to temporarily disable]

by geolite69 [profile]

 

 

Cache Issues:

 

This cache has not been approved yet. Once it is approved, it will be listed on the site. Check the logs to see if the reviewers have left a note for this listing.

N 44° 56.139 W 123° 02.479

UTM: 10T E 496739 N 4975802

SW 1.6mi from your home coordinates.

or convert to NAD27 at Jeeep.com

 

Click icon to download:

 

Read about waypoint downloads

 

In Oregon, United States [view map]

Hidden: 10/9/2005

Use waypoint: GCQXBT (what's this?)

Make this page print-friendly (no logs)

 

Please note: To use the services of geocaching.com, you must agree to the terms and conditions in our disclaimer.

 

(ratings out of 5 stars. 1 is easiest, 5 is hardest)

Difficulty: Terrain:

 

EMERGENCY MEETING TO TRY AND SAVE GEOCACHING AS WE KNOW IT HERE IN SALEM,AND NOT SET A PRECEDENCE FOR OTHER CITIES TO FOLLLOW.IF YOU ENJOY CACHING ON ANY LEVEL PLEASE EMAIL THE ADDRESS I GIVE YOU OR SHOW UP!!!!!!

 

THIS COULD CHANGE EVERYTHING FOLKS,I HAVE BEEN ON THIS FROM DAY ONE AND HAVE BEEN LIED TO FACE TO FACE FROM THE CITY OF SALEM REP THAT I HAVE DEALT WITH.THEY SEEM SET UPON MAKING US OBTAIN WRITTEN PERMISSION TO EVEN WALK ON THE PAVED APTHWAYS IN THE PARKS.IF YOU HAVE EVER FOUND ANY OF MY CACHES OR WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO FIND ANYONE ELSES CACHES THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SALEM PARKS I IMPLORE YOU TO AT A MINIMUM SEND BRUCE BOLTON AN EMAIL.IF THURSDAYS EVENT DOES NOT WORK TO OUR ADVANTAGE I PLAN ON GOING OVER THEIR HEADS AND GO STRAIGHT TO CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR WITH THIS ON THE 24TH OF THIS MONTH.PLEASE IF YOU VALUE THIS SPORT ENOUGH TO HAVE BOUGHT A GPS PLEASE STAND UP WITH ME AND BE COUNTED.HERE IS WHAT THEY PLAN ON DOING.(THIS IS BEING HAND RETYPED AS I COULDN'T COPY AND PASTE IT SO IT SHOULD BE WORD FOR WORD WHAT I RECEIVED)

3.13. GEOCACHE PARK USE POLICY

3.13.A GEOCACHING IS RECOGNIZED AS A SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY THAT IS GAINING IN POPULARITY.ANYONE DESIRING TO PLACE A CAHE ON CITY OF SALEM PROPERTY MUST CONTACT THE DEPT.OF COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR PERMISSION.

3.13B GEOCACHERS SHALL FOLLOW THE "GUIDE TO CREATING AND HIDING A CACHE" AS DESCRIBED AT WWW.GEOCACHING.COM

3.13C PARK/FACILITY DAMAGE-GEOCACHERS SHALL BE HELD RESPONSABLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO CITY OF SALEM PARK PROPERTY AND FACILITIES AS A RESULT OF USE.GEOCACHERS ARE NOT AUTHERIZED TO ACCESS TURF,PATHWAYS,OR SENSITIVE AREA'S WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPT.OF COMMUNITY SERVICES.

3.13D- GEOCACHERS ARE DIRECTED TO STAY ON PARK SYSTEM TRAILS,ROADS AND /OR PATHWAYS WHENEVER POSSIBLE.FOR CACHES LOCATED IN REMOTE AREAS,GEOCACHERS SHALL TRAVEL ON DURABLE SURFACES,I.E,ROCK NON-VEGATIVE.

3.13E AVOID CREATING NEW TRAILS-CACHES WHICH ARE LOCATED IN REMOTE AREAS WHERE NEWER TRAILS AND DAMAGE TO VEGITATION IS EVIDENT WILL BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED.

3.13F PLACING A PHYSICAL GEOCACHE WITHIN THE FOLOOWING AREAS IS PROHIBITED:

1)HISTORIC BUSH HOUSE,GREENHOUSE,ARTBARN,AND ROSE GARDEN.

2)HISTORIC DEEPWOOD ESTATES AND GARDENS

3)PIONEER CEMETARY(NOTE THIS WAS ALREADY APPROVED SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THEIR BRINGING THIS UP AGAIN))

4)ANY ELEVATED STRUCTURE/CLIMBING PROHIBITED

5)PUBLIC RESTROOMS

6)ANY AREAS MARKED NO TRESPASSING((LIKE TRIPLE DUHHH THERE)

3.13G- CACHES LOCATED IN CITY OF SALEM PARKS ,OPEN SPACES, OR FACILITIES SHALL NOT CONSIST OF"AMMO CANS" OR CONTAINERS WHICH MIGHT BE DESCRIBED AS"SUSPICIOUS CONTAINERS"(THEY HAVEN'T FOUND ONE OF MY "STONES" YET HAVE THEY?)THE USE OF CLEAR CONTAINERS WHERE THE CONTENTS CAN BE EASILY VIEWED IS PREFERRED.

3.13H- ALL CAHES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SALEM PARKS,OPEN SPACES,AND/OR FACILITIES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY AN "OFFICIAL GEOCACHE" STICKERAND LISTED ON WWW.GEOCACHE.COM(THIS WAS MISSPELLED AND I RETYPED IT THE WAY IT WAS TYPOED AND SENT TO ME)CACHES FOUND BY CITY STAFF AND NBOT IDENTIFIED BY WWW.GEOCACHE.COM(AGAIN THE SAME TYPO) AND THE OFFICIAL STICKER MAY BE REMOVED AND DESTROYED.

3.13I- CACHE IN TRASH OUT(CITO)- CACHERS WHO DESIRE TO SCHEDULE,HOLD OR PARTICIPATE IN A CITO EVENT ARE DIRECTED TO CONTACT THE DEPT.OF COMM.SERVICES FOR TRAINING ON THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF TRASH GATHERED ON CITY OF SALEM PROPERTY.

3.13JCACHE CONTENTS-THE FOLLLOWING ITEMS SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN A CACHE LOCATED IN CITY PARKS,OPEN SPACES OR FACILITIES:

1)EXPLOSIVES

2)FIREWORKS

3)AMMUNITION

4)BUTANE LIGHTERS

5)KNIVES

6)FIREARMS

7)DRUGS

8)ALCOHOL

9)FOOD

3.13K -COMMERCIAL CACHES-COMMERCIAL CACHES,THOSE THAT ATTEMPT TO USE GEOCACHING TO SOLICIT CUSTOMERS,ARE PROHIBITED OF CITY PARKS,OPEN SPACES AND FACILITIES

3.13L THE CITY OF SALEM RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK RE-IMBURSMENT WHERE POSSIBLE,OF THE ACTUAL EXPENSES TO THE CITY FOR THE REMOVAL OF CACHES DEEMED TO BE ILLEGAL,AND/OR DANGEROUS.

THAT IS WHAT I RECIEVED FROM TYEH CITY CONTACT.IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THIS THURSDAYS MEETING AND I REALIZE IT IS VERY SHORT NOTICE THAN I IMPLORE YOU TO AT A MINIMUM EMAIL BRUCE BOLTON AT "BBOLTON@CITYOFSALEM.NET" IF THIS DOESN'T WORK FOR YOU HIS PHONE NUMBER IS 503-588-6261. HE HAS REQUESTED RESPONSES BE MADE BY THE 19TH OF THIS MINTH AND I AM JUMPING THE GUN BY ASKING EVERYONE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING IN HOPES THAT WE CAN SET THE BAR AND NIP THIS IN THE BUD.THANX AND I HOPE YOU ALL ENJOYED FINDING ANY SALEM CACHES,LETS KEEP IT THAT WAY.......

 

Additional Hints (Decrypt) Decryption Key

A|B|C|D|E|F|G|H|I|J|K|L|M

-------------------------

N|O|P|Q|R|S|T|U|V|W|X|Y|Z

(letter above equals below,

and vice versa)

 

 

PNPUVAT JVYY PRNFR GB RKVFG VS JR QB ABGUVAT NOBHG GUVF

 

Find...

...other caches hidden or found by this user

...nearby caches of this type, that I haven't found

...all nearby caches, that I haven't found

...all nearby placenames

...all nearby benchmarks

...all nearby hiking trails from Trails.com

 

 

For online maps...

Geocaching.com Maps

Google Maps

MapQuest

Microsoft MapPoint

Yahoo Maps

Rand McNally

Topozone

Terraserver

Tiger Census Maps

 

 

Logged Visits (1 total. )

Warning. Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

Cache find counts are based on the last time the page generated.

 

 

October 9 by geolite69 (486 found)

OKAY TEAM B.S HERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO REDEEM YOURSELVES(I KNOW YOU'VE JUST BEEN FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES AND ALL BUT I HAD TO POKE A LITTLE BIT)I WAS LIED TO BY BRUCE,I HAD CONTACTED YOU ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY AND ON SATURDAY RECIEVED THE LETTER IN THE MAIL STATIN GWHAT I HAD TO RE-TYPE.IF YOU CAN POST THIS ASAP THAT WOULD BE GREAT I KNOW IT'S NOT ALOT OF NOTICE BUT I HAVE SPENT THE GREATER PORTION OF THE AFTERNOON AND EVENING COPING AND PASTING AND EMAILING ANYONE WHO HAS EVER FOUND ANY OF MY CACHES (QUITE A TASK I MUST COMMENT)AND I FIGURED THIS WOULD SERVE A TWOFOLD PURPOSE,CONTACTING YOU ABOPUT THIS AND GETTING IT UP ON THE WEBSITE.IF YOU CAN HELP ME/US WITH THIS ON ANY LEVEL PLEASE DO,I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO FROM HERE AND THE IMPLICATIONS SUCK ON MANY LEVELS.IF THIS GOES THROUGH OTHERE TOWN S WILL USE IT AS AN EXAMPLE.IF YOU CAN'T POST THIS CAN YOU FORWARD THIS INFO ALONG TO ANYBODY IN THE RANKS THAT COULD HELP ME?OR HAS DEALT WITH THIS BEFOR?AND BTW THAT CURSED GOLD CACHE BY THE PIRATES WAS REALLY REALLY REALLY COOL.I GOT A PIECE OF CURSED GOLD JUST FOR YOU(NOT THAT YOU'D EVER GIVE UP WHO YOU REALLY ARE WITH YOUR REPUTATION)BUT I'D BE WILLING TO LEAVE IT SOMEWHERE FOR YOUSEEING AS YOUR A PIRATE AT HEART.... THANX GUYS

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

[upload an image for this log]

 

 

this is what i'm talking about..... can anyone help?

[+dogbreathcanada]

Could you have at least bothered to format that so it's readable? As is, I scanned, decided it was too much trouble to read, and moved on (well moved on after commenting on the laziness of the entry).

[Keystone]

Ummm, with the exception of a couple of paragraphs, this document pretty much says "follow the Geocaching.com listing guidelines, and ask us for permission." Geocaching thrives in many areas where the parks are managed under policies just like this one.

 

I won't comment specifically on the policy since it's been edited to include editorial comments.

 

The sky is not falling. Good luck in working cooperatively with this land manager.

[+GeoLite69]

did you not read the part wher we will need "written" permission to access any paved area?and what about the portion regarding the city seeking reimbursment for "actual"costs incurred?is that not a cry for help or what?

Edited October 10, 2005 by geolite69

[+Lil Elephants]

I don't see the problem... we have some areas here in Michigan that have very similar policies and caches continue to be hidden and found with no problems. Even if it is interpretted in such a way to be too restrictive, it's not that far to get outside the city limits and therefore away from the city's policy.

[Keystone]

are you guys just freaks or nuts,did you not read the part wher we will need "written" permission to access any paved area?and what about the portion regarding the city seeking reimbursment for "actual"costs incurred?is that not a cry for help or what?

I'll kindly thank you for minding the forum guidelines, and not calling those who post to your thread "freaks" or "nuts." Please calm down, turn off the caps lock, and have a discussion.

[+Lil Elephants]

we will need "written" permission to access any paved area

 

I don't believe paved areas fall under 3.13C "GEOCACHERS ARE NOT AUTHERIZED TO ACCESS TURF,PATHWAYS,OR SENSITIVE AREA'S WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION"

 

In fact 3.13D specifically says "GEOCACHERS ARE DIRECTED TO STAY ON PARK SYSTEM TRAILS,ROADS AND /OR PATHWAYS WHENEVER POSSIBLE.FOR CACHES LOCATED IN REMOTE AREAS,GEOCACHERS SHALL TRAVEL ON DURABLE SURFACES,I.E,ROCK NON-VEGATIVE."

 

That sounds more like paved areas to me. Basically they're saying don't trample the vegetation. Stay on groomed trails.

 

what about the portion regarding the city seeking reimbursment for "actual"costs incurred?

 

I believe you're referring again to 3.13C "GEOCACHERS SHALL BE HELD RESPONSABLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO CITY OF SALEM PARK PROPERTY AND FACILITIES AS A RESULT OF USE "

 

If a visitor causes damage to the park property or facilities, they should be charged whether they are a geocacher or not. This sounds reasonable to me.

[+ironman114]

are you guys just freaks or nuts,did you not read the part wher we will need "written" permission to access any paved area?and what about the portion regarding the city seeking reimbursment for "actual"costs incurred?is that not a cry for help or what?

I wouldn't call Keystone a freak or a nut. If you read his sig line you would see he is a cache reviewer?approver for a large area in the east. They have some pretty restrictive policies back there. Parks usually have policies like what you described but now they just rewrite them and put geocache and geocacher in them.

 

I wish you well in your endeavor and hope someone who has had experience working with park departments can help you ease their fears of their parks getting thrashed by hoards of cachers.

[tossedsalad]

are you guys just freaks or nuts,did you not read the part wher we will need "written" permission to access any paved area?and what about the portion regarding the city seeking reimbursment for "actual"costs incurred?is that not a cry for help or what?

I did a search on "written" and also "paved" and found nothing that said you need written permission to access the paved paths. It sound like you may need permission to geocache in the parks, but it said, "pathways" which may not include all "paved" areas.

 

I agree that this sounds like a bureaucratic overreaction to a problem that does not exist. I think a reasonable response that includes an informational presentation may help, but some of the wording shows they have already been exposed to geocaching in a negative way. I especially like the part that says you can only do a CITO after you have been trained "ON THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF TRASH GATHERED ON CITY OF SALEM PROPERTY". What does that mean?

 

BTW, which Salem is this? I tried to find the state in the posts, but all caps is pretty hard to scan.

 

Anyone have an idea of what prompted this response by Salem? Did they have some bad experiences with caches or cachers? Or were they just caught off guard by finding out that there were caches in their midst? I wonder what will happen when the City of Frederick finds out about all the caches in their parks!

[+ironman114]

BTW, which Salem is this? I tried to find the state in the posts, but all caps is pretty hard to scan.

 

Salem, Oregon

 

It was mentioned in the part above the all caps part.

Edited October 10, 2005 by ironman114

[+GeoLite69]

arrg me hearties,the caps lock thing was an oopsie,it's salem oregon and also my first time in these chatboards(sorry again if that's not the right term)i meant NO disrespect by the term freaks and/or nuts but take this hobby very seriously and don't want to get kicked out of the parks,this is where a majority of my "creative" hides are located.mostly i guess i was hoping for an outcry of support on this and wasn't aware that other cities have restricted rules,i just didn't want to see them here,oregon is the "birthplace" of caching and we are the states capitol,i didn't want those rules to go through and have us used as an example.what most of us locals saw was a 10,000$bill showing up in a cachers mailbox after an ammo can was "disrupted" by the bomb squad when a cache was inadvertantly found by a muggle.

[+BigFurryMonster]

I just read:

 

"...THEY SEEM SET UPON MAKING US OBTAIN WRITTEN PERMISSION TO EVEN WALK ON THE PAVED APTHWAYS IN THE PARKS..."

 

but this is so ludicrous I did not even bother to read the rest. What is your point?

[+Jester2112]

If it helps, here's the guideline/rule for placing caches in the St. Andrews State Park facility located in Panama City Beach, FL:

 

NO CACHES ALLOWED...PERIOD!!! NOT ANY TIME, NOT ANYWHERE. ANY CACHE PLACED WILL BE REMOVED/DESTROYED IMMEDIATELY!!!

 

So try to remember, it could be worse. I think the land manager is just trying to protect the natural resources that make Oregon a beautiful place to live. Although rules can be resticting, most of them in this situation are a good thing. I know we've all gone looking for a cache only to find we didn't need the GPS with us. We can just follow the trash trail and/or the beaten down foliage directly to the cache. I'm sure you can work with the folks there to come up with a comprimise that allows for caching in the area but at the same time protects the pristine area that made you want to bring fellow cachers there in the first place. Good luck and happy caching.

[+briansnat]

did you not read the part wher we will need "written" permission to access any paved area?and what about the portion regarding the city seeking reimbursment for "actual"costs incurred?is that not a cry for help or what?

I read where you said that, but I didn not see it anywhere in the policy. If the policy is as stated here it seems like a pretty reasonable one.

[CoyoteRed]

Most of what I'm seeing in the regulations quoted is standard fare except for a couple of "gotchas."

 

One is the "reimbursement of costs." Sounds fairly open ended and open to interpretation. They could charge you anything and, really, it's not something you could control. Get a militant employee that tossed his lighter in your cache and you're done for.

 

Second, is the aligning with geocaching.com. Any other cache would automatically be illegal. Terracaching, movingcache.com, a moving cache from travelertags.com, navicache, and a cache on Scout's site would all be excluded. You will be forced to buy an "official geocache sticker" from geocaching.com.

 

Now, it is a certainly that many here couldn't care less about this last point, it would certainly cause me to boycott completely placing a cache or visiting a cache under the control of these regs. (Remember the militant employee? A cacher could do the same thing and you're done.)

 

There is really no way you can stop these regulations from being implemented. The best you can hope for is having them changed to something sensible. In present form, and with no appologies to the above posters, they are not.

 

I'd work on eliminating the gc.com thing, both listing and the sticker. Get that changed to identified on the outside as a geocache with URL of listing site and cache identifier. If they balk, include owner contact information.

 

Get rid of the ammo can restriction because it's pretty stupid. Ask the Isrealis what a suspisious container looks like and they'll more than likely say briefcase, backpack, mail package, or the like. You want a sturdy package so trash is not strewn all around. Being clear is useless it's not covered. Besides if they know where all the caches are it will be hard to mistake it for a bomb, right?

 

Whoever wrote this needs to get a better clue. You can write sensible regulations that is a win-win for both sides without it making you look like an idiot. Believe me, I'm still in the middle of this crap.

[+welch]

Ok, I read all that CAPS stuff right.

They say:

1. "3.13.A GEOCACHING IS RECOGNIZED AS A SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY THAT IS GAINING IN POPULARITY.ANYONE DESIRING TO PLACE A CAHE ON CITY OF SALEM PROPERTY MUST CONTACT THE DEPT.OF COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR PERMISSION."

2. that they want you to to get written permission (i assume theres an attached form??)

3. and that there should be no caches in a couple historic parks (rose bush something)

4. and some other things, most of which are either 'general' requiresments (no drugs, etc)/ standard practices or seem to be the usual clauses in other geocaching policies (like if you didn't follow directions and we find the cache we'll throw it away, and if you're destroying things we'll try to fine you).

 

What in there didn't you like?

Overall it could be much worse, like a permit fee, or just saying 'uh no'.

 

Personally I have two minor problems with what you've posted. The first that they seem to say no ammo boxes since they're suspicous , which is a bad thing because ammo boxes are excellent for caches. (Animal resistant, cheap, waterproof, just generally long lasting) but they also seem to inply there are parks in the systems that are large and have no formal trails. so whos out in these middle of nowhere places to mistakenly find the cache??

The other minior problem is that they say caches should be identified by an 'offical geocache sticker'. Does this mean they're creating their own to give out?? or are they referreing to groundspeaks stickers or what?? (they also say no commerical caches, after they've already said follow the placement guidelines at *geocaching.com*, but if they're directing people to purchase specific stickers from specific people that seems like commerical thing .)

But like I said these are minor problems.

[magellan315]

There are any number of State and local agencies that have created effective Geocaching policies. The one in your location has used all of GC policies and thrown in some of their own. Like using clear containers and no ammo cans. It may be public land, but it is managed by the city, which make them legally liable for anything that happens on it.

 

Yes I'd be a little concerned about the Geocachers being charged for damage to the park, its to vauge and open ended. As far as the requirement to get training from the city to hold a CITO, so what, a city employee will most likely supervise you if you hold formal CITO. Perfectly normal.

 

This is the policy created by Pennsylvania DCNR and has been used by local agencies in PA.

 

Calm down, take a deep breath, this is not the first time this has happened and it sounds like the city is being very reasonable. The could have taken the easy way out and banned it all together. Work with them to create a reasonable policy and everything will be fine, fight them and you will fight city hall(think about the adage).

 

Better yet go to the people who manage the city parks and offer to hold a CITO at a location of their choosing, you'll be amazaed how fast they will work with you once they see the results of a CITO.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Whoever wrote this needs to get a better clue. You can write sensible regulations that is a win-win for both sides without it making you look like an idiot. Believe me, I'm still in the middle of this crap.

From what I have seen at local city council meetings I am not surprised. First you get a bunch of people that ran for office because they want to impose their will on others. keep in mind most of these people tend to be older and tend to be closed minded about anything new. As such when anything new is brought up each of them is going to add his or her own restriction on the activity. They are not going to do any real research. They are just going to make it very difficult for those that have in interest in what ever the activity is enjoy that activity. Every time I have been to a city council meeting i have gotten the impression that I am watching a team of dictators at work.

 

Regarding the geocacher having to pay for damages to the park caused by someone looking for the cache. How would they even be able to prove that the damages was caused by someone looking for the cache. This is a no win for the cacher, even if the person that hid that cache could prove their cache had nothing to do with the damage, the court cost of fighting the issue would cost several thousand dollars. Anyont that thinks this is not going to lead to problems is living in LaLa land.

Edited October 10, 2005 by JohnnyVegas

[+Wander Lost]

This sounds more like a regional problem that would reach more of your intended audience in the NW forums.

 

Other than than, work with the parks not against them. You should be glad they are not imposing an outright ban on caching. If you have the right attitude when working with the parks department you will hopefully wind up with a policy that is fair to both sides.

[rynd]

3.13C PARK/FACILITY DAMAGE-GEOCACHERS SHALL BE HELD RESPONSABLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO CITY OF SALEM PARK PROPERTY AND FACILITIES AS A RESULT OF USE.

I haven't read all of this, or anything else on this matter butt:

The way that reads, Geocahers would be responsable no matter who did the damage.

[+Lil Elephants]

I haven't read all of this, or anything else on this matter butt:

The way that reads, Geocahers would be responsable no matter who did the damage.

 

The phrase "AS A RESULT OF USE" does not indicate that.

[Skovar]

From what I have seen at local city council meetings I am not surprised. First you get a bunch of people that ran for office because they want to impose their will on others. keep in mind most of these people tend to be older and tend to be closed minded about anything new.

How interesting! In the places I've lived, the local governments have always seemed to be populated mostly by young, upwardly-mobile professionals with personal agendas and aspirations for higher political office.

 

Does Salem suffer from a "cache density/saturation" issue? That issue seems often to be the motivating force behind such regulations/statutes.

[+JohnnyVegas]

From what I have seen at local city council meetings I am not surprised. First you get a bunch of people that ran for office because they want to impose their will on others. keep in mind most of these people tend to be older and tend to be closed minded about anything new.

How interesting! In the places I've lived, the local governments have always seemed to be populated mostly by young, upwardly-mobile professionals with personal agendas and aspirations for higher political office.

 

Does Salem suffer from a "cache density/saturation" issue? That issue seems often to be the motivating force behind such regulations/statutes.

In the small town/city I just moved out of, the city council members have so much white hair it makes you feel like you need to be wearing an artic snow suit.

Most the young, upwardly-mobile professionals were to busy living beyond their means to run for office. Regardless of age, I think in most city governments those that are elected have agendas for force on other people.

[+wildearth2001]

It seams like a fairly decent code. I wouldnt complain awhole lot because it seams like they are trying to accomidate you guys. The part about the pathways in 3.13C might be worth politely talking to them about. It definatetly could be reworded a little bit and still make the point the city is after.

[+Criminal]

I especially like how geocachers will get to pay for any and all damage. Seems like the rules only apply to geocaching (listed by Groundspeak). This leaves terracachers, criminalcachers, beercachers etc free and clear. Gonna be tough to prove exactly who caused the damage hey?

 

How did they find out about geocaching, did some dimwit ask them for permission?

[rynd]

I haven't read all of this, or anything else on this matter butt:

The way that reads, Geocahers would be responsable no matter who did the damage.

 

The phrase "AS A RESULT OF USE" does not indicate that.

It doesn't say by who it just says use.

[+Renegade Knight]

I read it. It's wordy, and everything could have been summarized in a few sentences and been more effective.

 

In a nutshell they are saying

 

1) Ask first, to place a cache.

2) Follow the existing park rules.

3) Don't put a cache in a couple of spots because they are sensitive.

4) Just in case we reserve the right to bill you for expenses.

5) Don't use a suspicious container.

 

The bit about suspicious containers is bunk. Given that toys, whoopee cushions, food, and a box with shoes in it have been reported, everything is suspicious in the right circumstance. It won't matter if it's painted pink with hearts and flowers.

[+fly46]

Jee... Your problem sounds so... Not a problem. Sounds a bit like the permit that I have to go fill out again before I get my butt kicked because I waited too long.

 

No permit, no cache. Plain and simple. Not a big deal.

[+Artemis]

BLM Policy on Geocaching:

The BLM believes that geocaching is an appropriate casual use of public land. But, as use increases or becomes a management issue in a particular area, the following minimum steps should be taken:

1) try to locate a person or group that is responsible for the cache and have them register the cache with the BLM. Make sure the cache is safe and environmentally sound,

2) prepare an environmental assessment or other appropriate National Environmental Protection Act document,

3) issue a letter of authorization or SRP with special stipulations to mitigate concerns,

4) if sites are not registered within a reasonable amount of time after notification, then the cache should be removed from public land, normally, the cache would be determined to be abandoned property after 72 hours unless the appropriate authorization has been obtained,

5) monitor the use to assess public health and safety and environmental protection issues,

6) if the activity/sport becomes too large and begins to conflict with other authorized use, appropriate steps should be taken to properly manage the activity.

 

Sounds like the BLM and Salem Oregon are working on the same notes.

 

Also, have you ever seen what happened to a cacher named Hillwilly ?

 

He had his day in court over railroad tracks and he was charged and fined.

 

hillwilly's day in court

 

So the part about charging for any and all damages is not the newest idea on the block.

 

You might be interested to do a google search on geocaching permit and see just how many local land managers already require that you get permission before you place a geocache.

 

I think the concern should be more along the area of what has happened to the parks and areas to make them feel this is a required step? If you walk around the parks and see torn up vegitation and destroyed plants because of the damage caused by geocachers then you might have to stop and think maybe this is for a reason?

 

In my opinion, while this might have impact on some caches, what I have read in the ALL CAPS section leads me to feel Salem is coming in line with many places rather then creating something new.

[+Team Torque]

what about the portion regarding the city seeking reimbursment for "actual"costs incurred?

 

I believe you're referring again to 3.13C "GEOCACHERS SHALL BE HELD RESPONSABLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO CITY OF SALEM PARK PROPERTY AND FACILITIES AS A RESULT OF USE "

 

If a visitor causes damage to the park property or facilities, they should be charged whether they are a geocacher or not. This sounds reasonable to me.

This is the one sticky point for me. I agree with you 100% that anyone who causes damage should be held responsible. The problem I have is Geocachers are being singled out in this section for no apparent reason. My guess is, as park guest go, Geocachers are the least likely cause damage and one of the most likely groups to leave the area better than they found it.

 

To me the sky is not falling but I would like to see the city console members better educated as to who Geocachers are.

[+GeoLite69]

i thank you all for your comments up to now.i have read them all and will be researching the links you all have provided and other info.i was seriously not aware that things were this bad in other areas.and for the record again i say the caps lock thing wasn't intentional i'm not very computer savvy and didn't understand that it meant i was yelling etc.the individual who got this started for us coordinated a rather large cache event and had ties to our local city government as i do as well but i don't have the white hair as he did this sounds important and am considering dying as a last ditch attempt to fit in and have these rules changed(lol)when i stated "paved" area's i meant pathways,basically i understood that to access a "pathway" which in my opinion a paved trail was the same as i would need to get written permission.but if i turned off my gps i wouldn't .our local government doesn't have the financial resources to even come close to enforcing any of these rules except for the seeking re-imbursemnet for costs incurred.which scarred the he double hockey sticks out of me and most of our other locals.please continue to add comments as i will be checking in and absorbing all of them.and lastly i'm very sorry for you poor individuals that have become acustomed to having filled out permit forms to place a cache.this is supposed to be fun not full of red tape.i certainly will be at a loss to ever search for caches in these areas and it saddens me that there are some who feel that nothing can be doen,this is still america in my opinion and democracy isn't just for iraq.thanx for the briefcase cache idea btw.

[magellan315]

The permits that many places ask Geocachers to file is hardly red tape. I have two permitted caches and the paperwork took me all of five miuntes and then I e-mailed it to them. I've dealt with Fedearal, state, and local governments in my job. The pemit policies currently in place are very simple and easily dealt with as compared to what I have to go through. Chances are you have even found caches that require a permit and didn't even know it.

 

You have two choices here, work with the parks department and create a reasonable Geocaching policy, which they seem to have done quite nicely without any help. Or do your own thing and piss them off to the point where they make it difficult for all Goecachers, not just yourself. Understand that they are going to put this policy in place, they could have easily have saved themselves alot of time and said no, many places have. So clearly they see this as an acceptable land use. Keep in mind that this is about a greater good, this will benefit all Geocachers in your area, instead of losing a series of parks forever.

 

Take some of that energy and plan a CITO in one of these parks and you'll soon find that you'll acquire all sorts of allies within the local government.

[+Team Perks]

Looks like a fairly reasonable "first attempt" at creating a policy. If I were in Salem, I would ask that they clarify a few minor points but I otherwise don't see a problem.

[+GeoLite69]

irespect that latest post,half of the problem is that i have scheduled several cito events ,am very activeand pro-active in my local communtiy from everything to shutting down drug houses to foster parenting among other things.i am really trying to not take this personally(i heard you yoda back down) but it seems that i was lied to twice aboiut this,i had also contacted Groundspeak in refernece to the se rules before they came out and they expresseda desire to not see ANY other rules than the ones listed at geocaching.com .it almost seems as if they don't care what happens and are merely placating us so it looks like they tried to work with us.i have over a hundred hides in the city alone and make it a point to let the city know where/what they are(none are the A typical ammo cans) and the fact that many cachers from abroad come to visit the city here to check them out,they have to be spending money which has to interest them on some level,and then back to the cito events,i've helped clear so many trashy old homeless camps that the volunteer who takes the dumptrucks to the dump(i meant city employee) has made the comment that he has never seen any other group clear/collect anywhere near as much refuse in twice the amount of time.we are out there doing things for the greater good and getting geocaching better known but it still seems like i'm fighting a losing battle.i will be taking the printed out versions of all you rposts to thursday nights emergency meeting and passing them along,i am merely an enthusiastic spokesperson/liason for our group scavenging for as much info on this subject as possible.my feelings are similar to many of the groups members but i am not the leader by any means nor desire to be.thanx again for your input

[+robert]

I'm having a hard time reading (spacing and punctuation ) what you're writing but remember that geocaching.com is a listing service and will likely not get involved in your local issues with parks. If you haven't already, you may want to get one of the Oregon state orgs involved to help you out.

 

We have permission systems in effect in a few areas here in MD and it works out pretty well, so really it's not the end of the world.

 

Good luck!

[+TeamK-9]

I have to agree with Keystone and a bunch of other people.

 

It seems no more restrictive than a lot of policies in place in different cities. Would you be happier if they just instituted a blanket ban and started pulling caches?

 

I think it's a fairly reasonable policy. A lot of things may sound really restrictive but they're the kind of things that are most likely going to be left up to interpretation of the rules.

[+robert]

It seems no more restrictive than a lot of policies in place in different cities. Would you be happier if they just instituted a blanket ban and started pulling caches?

That's the key.

 

The alternative is no geocaching at all, which is why one of your state orgs should be involved if they aren't already. I don't know that you're going to be able to do this yourself, and what you do yourself impacts each and every geocacher in your area.

[magellan315]

1. Please type your post they way you would write, with puncation, capitalizing letters when its appropriate and try using paragraphs. Your posts a like reading one continuos run on sentence.

 

2. You DO NOT have my permission to use any post that I have placed to this thread or any other. I will not have my comments used to fit your agenda, to fight the permit policy.

 

Clearly you still insist on fighting this policy and I consider it a reasonable solution to a total ban on Geocaching in your area. You stated that you have notified the city of all of the caches you have hidden. How different is that from a permit, isn't this notifying the city a cache is being hidden.

 

While the parks are public land, someone is legally responsible for them and they want to know what is on their property. This is a reasonable expectation. I have personally been in a similar situation with a county park system whose first repsonse was to make plans to ban Geocaching, it took alot of work to get them to create a permit system. Your very fortunate that your park system is willing to go to a permit system first.

Edited October 11, 2005 by magellan315

[+Team Perks]

i have over a hundred hides in the city alone...

And that could be part of the concern, right there. I'm all in favor of more caches, but I'm not a parks official.

 

The draft policy seems to acknowledge that geocaching is a growing sport, and it's not unreasonable to think "Gee, if there are this many now...what happens in another year or two?"

 

I imagine quite a few parks systems develop policies when they discover just how many caches are on their lands, and consider the risks that poorly placed caches could cause damage to the parks. In that regard, working against the proposed policies entirely could well do more harm than good, whereas showing your willingness to help craft and refine a reasonable policy could well be what the parks people will respond most favorably to.

[magellan315]

The draft policy seems to acknowledge that geocaching is a growing sport, and it's not unreasonable to think "Gee, if there are this many now...what happens in another year or two?"

That was precisley the concern of the park system I dealt with and those of others. They know how much use their land can handle, including a reasonable number of Geocaches per park.

 

The park I worked with was more impressed by helping to guide them to create an effective policy, as opposed to telling them I'll do whatever I want on the land you manage.

[+Prime Suspect]

i thank you all for your comments up to now.i have read them all and will be researching the links you all have provided and other info.i was seriously not aware that things were this bad in other areas.and for the record again i say the caps lock thing wasn't intentional i'm not very computer savvy and didn't understand that it meant i was yelling etc.the individual who got this started for us coordinated a rather large cache event and had ties to our local city government as i do as well but i don't have the white hair as he did this sounds important and am considering dying as a last ditch attempt to fit in and have these rules changed(lol)when i stated "paved" area's i meant pathways,basically i understood that to access a "pathway" which in my opinion a paved trail was the same as i would need to get written permission.but if i turned off my gps i wouldn't .our local government doesn't have the financial resources to even come close to enforcing any of these rules except for the seeking re-imbursemnet for costs incurred.which scarred the he double hockey sticks out of me and most of our other locals.please continue to add comments as i will be checking in and absorbing all of them.and lastly i'm very sorry for you poor individuals that have become acustomed to having filled out permit forms to place a cache.this is supposed to be fun not full of red tape.i certainly will be at a loss to ever search for caches in these areas and it saddens me that there are some who feel that nothing can be doen,this is still america in my opinion and democracy isn't just for iraq.thanx for the briefcase cache idea btw.

Dude...

[tttedzeins]

A couple of things :

 

1) I don't think getting written permissin is a bad idea, it means you have written proof that you can place the cache there. If you have to inform them in writting then it is probably so that everyone in the department can be aware of it and the informatioin does not have to be passed around by word of mouth.

 

2) Some of these 'rules' are made up because some people are not as cautious as us and just blaze a trail straight to the cache regardless of damage to the vegetation.

 

3)Due to the hugh volume of liability suits going on the State parks do not want to be sued for some one injuring themselves while caching on park land.

 

4) As RK Stated an ammo can is probably the least suspicious item in the contianer category.

 

5) Not everyone has the same common sense as us and so need rules to know what to do.

 

6) Somethimes dealing with bureaucracy hurts.

Edited October 11, 2005 by tttedzeins

[+5]

i thank you all for your comments up to now.i have read them all and will be researching the links you all have provided and other info.i was seriously not aware that things were this bad in other areas.and for the record again i say the caps lock thing wasn't intentional i'm not very computer savvy and didn't understand that it meant i was yelling etc.the individual who got this started for us coordinated a rather large cache event and had ties to our local city government as i do as well but i don't have the white hair as he did this sounds important and am considering dying as a last ditch attempt to fit in and have these rules changed(lol)when i stated "paved" area's i meant pathways,basically i understood that to access a "pathway" which in my opinion a paved trail was the same as i would need to get written permission.but if i turned off my gps i wouldn't .our local government doesn't have the financial resources to even come close to enforcing any of these rules except for the seeking re-imbursemnet for costs incurred.which scarred the he double hockey sticks out of me and most of our other locals.please continue to add comments as i will be checking in and absorbing all of them.and lastly i'm very sorry for you poor individuals that have become acustomed to having filled out permit forms to place a cache.this is supposed to be fun not full of red tape.i certainly will be at a loss to ever search for caches in these areas and it saddens me that there are some who feel that nothing can be doen,this is still america in my opinion and democracy isn't just for iraq.thanx for the briefcase cache idea btw.

Dude...

What he said...

[JohnX]

i thank you all for your comments up to now.i have read them all and will be researching the links you all have provided and other info.i was seriously not aware that things were this bad in other areas.and for the record again i say the caps lock thing wasn't intentional i'm not very computer savvy and didn't understand that it meant i was yelling etc.  ----------- (edited for brevity)

Wow geolite69, you certainly made your point. Yes, you are difficult and immature. After being criticized for using all caps, you stop using caps completely and eliminate spaces between sentences. You sure showed us.

 

I am pointing this out because if you have a problem with your local Parks Department enacting laws to limit geocaching, and you approach them in that manner and with that attitude, you will be doing the entire geocaching community a disservice. Speaking from experience, I can say explaining geocaching to land managers, police officers, conservation committee members and park department members is not an easy thing to do, and they can easily cause more difficulties for you and all geocachers than you can cause for them.

 

Would anyone care to start a new thread about how to successfully deal with local organizations to promote geocaching for the benefit of everyone involved?

[Clan Riffster]

Geolite, I would recommend you educate your local officials regarding our obsess..uh..hobby. A well thought out presentation by some well mannered folks will go a long way towards bending their policy in a direction that is workable for all. Once you've taught them the basics, present them with a second draft of their geocaching rules, for their consideration.

 

Let's take a peek at what they've come up with, and see what we can improve;

3.13. GEOCACHE PARK USE POLICY

3.13.A GEOCACHING IS RECOGNIZED AS A SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY THAT IS GAINING IN POPULARITY.ANYONE DESIRING TO PLACE A CAHE ON CITY OF SALEM PROPERTY MUST CONTACT THE DEPT.OF COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR PERMISSION.

Beautiful. Don't change a thing. This in itself acknowledges that the city officials recognize geocaching in a positive light.

 

3.13B GEOCACHERS SHALL FOLLOW THE "GUIDE TO CREATING AND HIDING A CACHE" AS DESCRIBED AT WWW.GEOCACHING.COM

This one bothers me. I personally think the Geocaching.com method is great, but this particular rule requires that an applicant support a particular business. Maybe you could "borrow" the GC guidelines and get them included in the rules, so that GC isn't listed by name. That way they are simply guidelines, as opposed to GC guidelines.

 

3.13C PARK/FACILITY DAMAGE-GEOCACHERS SHALL BE HELD RESPONSABLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE TO CITY OF SALEM PARK PROPERTY AND FACILITIES AS A RESULT OF USE.

Nothing wrong with that, but the next sentance in this needs help;

 

GEOCACHERS ARE NOT AUTHERIZED TO ACCESS TURF,PATHWAYS,OR SENSITIVE AREA'S WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPT.OF COMMUNITY SERVICES.

Here's where education comes in. This rule seems to assume that a geocacher is only the person doing the hiding, and not the people doing the finding. The way this reads, each person that wants to hunt a cache would need to get permission from the Director. Point out the flaw, (in a nice way), and give them a corrected version.

 

3.13D- GEOCACHERS ARE DIRECTED TO STAY ON PARK SYSTEM TRAILS,ROADS AND /OR PATHWAYS WHENEVER POSSIBLE.FOR CACHES LOCATED IN REMOTE AREAS,GEOCACHERS SHALL TRAVEL ON DURABLE SURFACES,I.E,ROCK NON-VEGATIVE.

Again, nothing wrong here. They're just trying to protect their flora.

 

3.13E AVOID CREATING NEW TRAILS-CACHES WHICH ARE LOCATED IN REMOTE AREAS WHERE NEWER TRAILS AND DAMAGE TO VEGITATION IS EVIDENT WILL BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED.

Again, basic common sense. Probably could use a bit of tweeking.

 

3.13F PLACING A PHYSICAL GEOCACHE WITHIN THE FOLOOWING AREAS IS PROHIBITED:

1)HISTORIC BUSH HOUSE,GREENHOUSE,ARTBARN,AND ROSE GARDEN.

2)HISTORIC DEEPWOOD ESTATES AND GARDENS

3)PIONEER CEMETARY

4)ANY ELEVATED STRUCTURE/CLIMBING PROHIBITED

5)PUBLIC RESTROOMS

6)ANY AREAS MARKED NO TRESPASSING

No problems here.

 

3.13G- CACHES LOCATED IN CITY OF SALEM PARKS ,OPEN SPACES, OR FACILITIES SHALL NOT CONSIST OF"AMMO CANS" OR CONTAINERS WHICH MIGHT BE DESCRIBED AS"SUSPICIOUS CONTAINERS" THE USE OF CLEAR CONTAINERS WHERE THE CONTENTS CAN BE EASILY VIEWED IS PREFERRED.

Not sure if you can change this one, though I hope you can educate them. Obviously somebody put a scare into them concerning the evil, dreaded ammo can. Maybe during your presentation you could bring some well camo'ed ammo cans to show off, to dispel their concerns. Point out to them the fact that anything can look suspicious to a person with a suspicious mindset, and that their own existing notification proceedures will negate any possible bomb threat concerns. If someone reports a "suspicious" package, all they gotta do is look up the location and see that it is a cache, not a thermonuclear device. Try not to use sarcasm when dealing with idiots.

 

3.13H- ALL CAHES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SALEM PARKS,OPEN SPACES,AND/OR FACILITIES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY AN "OFFICIAL GEOCACHE" STICKERAND LISTED ON WWW.GEOCACHE.COM CACHES FOUND BY CITY STAFF AND NBOT IDENTIFIED BY WWW.GEOCACHE.COM AND THE OFFICIAL STICKER MAY BE REMOVED AND DESTROYED.

Suggest a compromise, due to the rather blatent commercialization of this rule. Something to the effect of, "All caches located.....shall be labled in such a manner as to clearly distinguish their purpose. Any unlable caches will be removed

 

3.13I- CACHE IN TRASH OUT(CITO)- CACHERS WHO DESIRE TO SCHEDULE,HOLD OR PARTICIPATE IN A CITO EVENT ARE DIRECTED TO CONTACT THE DEPT.OF COMM.SERVICES FOR TRAINING ON THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF TRASH GATHERED ON CITY OF SALEM PROPERTY.

Remember, this refers to events, not the everyday CITO'ing by cachers. As such, this rule is OK. They're telling you that, if you want to descend upon their parks in large groups, armed with trash bags, they need to tell you how they want it done.

 

3.13JCACHE CONTENTS-THE FOLLLOWING ITEMS SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN A CACHE LOCATED IN CITY PARKS,OPEN SPACES OR FACILITIES:

1)EXPLOSIVES

2)FIREWORKS

3)AMMUNITION

4)BUTANE LIGHTERS

5)KNIVES

6)FIREARMS

7)DRUGS

8)ALCOHOL

9)FOOD

Basic common sense, again.

 

3.13K -COMMERCIAL CACHES-COMMERCIAL CACHES,THOSE THAT ATTEMPT TO USE GEOCACHING TO SOLICIT CUSTOMERS,ARE PROHIBITED OF CITY PARKS,OPEN SPACES AND FACILITIES

Not a bad rough draft. Good idea, but needs to be rewritten.

 

3.13L THE CITY OF SALEM RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK RE-IMBURSMENT WHERE POSSIBLE,OF THE ACTUAL EXPENSES TO THE CITY FOR THE REMOVAL OF CACHES DEEMED TO BE ILLEGAL,AND/OR DANGEROUS.

This is a CYA rule. As much as it makes me cringe, due to it's open ended interpretation, I doubt you'll get them to budge on it. Only fight the battles you can win.

 

OK, now that we've taken a look at their rules, I hope you'll agree that they are not the totalitarian doctrines you initially described. They do need a bit of help, and if you offer that help, in a nonaggressive, professional manner, you might win a few points for the geocaching community. Obviously you're passionate about this game, and it shows loud and clear in your posts. If you present the city officials with the same attitude you originally posted with, they will shut the door in your face, and the battle will be for naught. I'm not saying this to criticise you, because I see that you've already toned down your approach quite a bit. Keep going in that direction and you'll be fine.

 

During your upcoming meeting/event thingy, keep an eye out for those folks who are good public speakers. Those are the ones you want to recruit for your presentation to the Parks Department. When dealing with government, it's often not what you say, but how you say it that matters the most.

 

Good luck in your quest. It's a worthy fight.

 

(note to critics: I already know my spelling sucks. There is no need to point this out to me.)

[+ironman114]

 

(note to critics: I already know my spelling sucks. There is no need to point this out to me.)

For those of you that know your spelling sucks and those that are ignorant of that fact also try using this easy tool: Spell checker for Internet Explorer

[+hukilaulau]

Riffster, that was an excellent, well thought out response.

I think the fact that the people who wrote the draft use words like "preferred" and "whenever possible" shows that they are flexible and reasonable and some compromises can probably be made.

I just want to add that after initially wanting to fight the noble fight for ammo cans everywhere, I've since decided that it might be best to save them for great caches in relatively less traveled areas (woods) and use plastic in well populated city parks and such. Sure, to a terrorist baby buggies and briefcases might be more suspicious, but let's face it... to the general public an ammo can is going to loo way more scary than something that looks like it just came out of their kitchen.

[+Wander Lost]

3.13G- CACHES LOCATED IN CITY OF SALEM PARKS ,OPEN SPACES, OR FACILITIES SHALL NOT CONSIST OF"AMMO CANS" OR CONTAINERS WHICH MIGHT BE DESCRIBED AS"SUSPICIOUS CONTAINERS" THE USE OF CLEAR CONTAINERS WHERE THE CONTENTS CAN BE EASILY VIEWED IS PREFERRED.

Not sure if you can change this one, though I hope you can educate them. Obviously somebody put a scare into them concerning the evil, dreaded ammo can. Maybe during your presentation you could bring some well camo'ed ammo cans to show off, to dispel their concerns. Point out to them the fact that anything can look suspicious to a person with a suspicious mindset, and that their own existing notification proceedures will negate any possible bomb threat concerns. If someone reports a "suspicious" package, all they gotta do is look up the location and see that it is a cache, not a thermonuclear device. Try not to use sarcasm when dealing with idiots.

What we did with the Washington State Parks on this matter was to bring in an Ammo can cache that had been 'in service' for awhile. We also brought in a standard tupperware and gladware type container that had had similar weather exposure. Once we showed them how the tupperware and gladware turn into trash pretty quickly they were quite impressed with the ammo can.

 

It helps to show how after a few months of weather the plastic ware lids crack and don't seal up as well making it easier for critters to get into them. That usually does the trick for keeping ammo cans as a viable container.

[+TeamAO]

 

[+DiskDevil]

Here in South Carolina...Those restrictions are pretty much common place. State rep decided Geocaching was bad for the state and set out to destroy it. Please read South Carolina bill H.3777 Then come help us. What you got is cake compared to this.