We're Geo-criminals!

3.8k · November 9, 2005

(*You're not Geocaching until you're within 10 meters of the cache with the GPS turned on. Up till then you're driving, hiking, climbing, swimming, biking... Keep this principle in mind if captured and interrogated.)

Very good point ... I like it!

Yeah, and I'm not geocaching in my dreams, either.

November 9, 2005

Yeah, and I'm not geocaching in my dreams, either.

Huh? Has one of the voices in your head learned to type?

November 9, 2005

I honestly did not read all of the posts here cuz I have to run, but one reason that trail may have been closed is for evidence. If it was a fire, the cause and origin may have been under investigation. Any disturbance of that area could cause harm to a crime scene. Same thing as if you went through a police taped off area. The other reason is for safety of course. I would have just written that one off and returned later when the trail re opened.

November 9, 2005

That said, my take-away thoughts are:

I believe the (maximum) penalty is excessive

[but the penalty will deter me from bypassing "Trail Closed" signs

It will also deter me from using developed trails at all whenever possible

I'm unconvinced of a moral dimension to violating an administrative ruling (trail closure)

But I can see that such a violation could damage the reputation of Geocaching*

(*You're not Geocaching until you're within 10 meters of the cache with the GPS turned on. Up till then you're driving, hiking, climbing, swimming, biking... Keep this principle in mind if captured and interrogated.)

If land managers are reading this thread, I'd also suggest that trail closure notices provide more information as to rationale and consequences.

I very much agree that the fine is excessive. I also have been very dissapointed at how the Coronado National Forest handles area closers:

Fire-close area for two years, even if it can be proven it is not dangerous

Mountian Lion Growls at kid (but never attacks)-Close area for several months, begin shooting Mtn Lions at first sight

I know I may sound a little bit of an extremist on this but I am VERY MUCH against the gov closing down an area unless there is a clear and IMMEDIATE danger to the land or to people entering the area (and by people I mean people educated in backcountry travel, stupid people are gonna kill themselves no matter how much we try to make sure they never encounter a dangerous situation). To the same end I think the gov should NOT be legally liable for people who do enter the area and hurt themselves. The way I see it is the land is owned by the people not the gov, if people want to go on their own land they should be able to, but if they hurt themself it is nobodys fault but their own.

FOR THE OP: As a local, may I ask what area of the forest were you in??

My Comment on the emphasized portion of the quoted post:

Fines: that is not an excuss for the fine being excessive

Trails: exactly it encourages people to go off trail in hopes of not being caught

November 9, 2005

I honestly did not read all of the posts here cuz I have to run, but one reason that trail may have been closed is for evidence. If it was a fire, the cause and origin may have been under investigation. Any disturbance of that area could cause harm to a crime scene. Same thing as if you went through a police taped off area. The other reason is for safety of course. I would have just written that one off and returned later when the trail re opened.

Well, sure. If the only information had been the trail closure, all possibilities would have been open: fire investigation, man-eating cougar rampage, UFO crash site, bird-flu quarantine, Monkalope sighting, etc.

Fact is that the fire occurred in July and the trail was unsigned as recently as a month ago (after our August rainy season would have destroyed any evidence). So the logical conclusion (borne out by the press release on the closure) was that the trail was closed while the hazard arising from the burned area could be assessed and dealt with. The burn only grazed this particular trail; only about 1/4-mile of the overall 5.5-mile length had any nearby fire damage at all.

November 9, 2005

FOR THE OP: As a local, may I ask what area of the forest were you in??

Sure--I was in the Coronado National Forest east of Mt. Wrightson, accessible via Gardner Canyon Road. Specifically, on the Walker Basin Trail which goes from Tunnel Spring (end of Gardner Canyon Road) south around Ditch Mountain to Walker Basin. Here is a link to a topo map track of the trail.

November 9, 2005

FOR THE OP: As a local, may I ask what area of the forest were you in??

Sure--I was in the Coronado National Forest east of Mt. Wrightson, accessible via Gardner Canyon Road. Specifically, on the Walker Basin Trail which goes from Tunnel Spring (end of Gardner Canyon Road) south around Ditch Mountain to Walker Basin. Here is a link to a topo map track of the trail.

Ok, thanks. I am not overly familiar with the area but I am aquaitned with it. it is nice back there

Edited November 9, 2005 by wildearth2001

November 9, 2005

As a mountain biker I've done my share of "fence jumping", but now I'm too old and too fat to out run the park police. I don't enjoy trespassing anymore. It's too stressful and the fear of getting caught far outweighs the thrill. -- Egad, did I just say that??

Close call #1 - caught by security guard while attempting to leave construction zone for new development. Guard couldn't find key to gate so we turned around split while he was stuck on the other side of the fence.

Close call #2 - caught by Parks Police in nature preserve on "illegal" trails. Pointed out to cop that the "illegal trail" was a decades old fire road and managed to convince him we were simply lost.

Close call #3 - caught by same cop in same preserve which was then closed to public entirely (due to "endangered species"). Same song and dance as before, glad he didn't recognize any of us.

Close call #4 - caught on private ranch by workers while riding some sweet single-track. Workers were really nice about it but pretty much demanded we leave and never come back. Ever.

So now, I've taken "the hint" and will no longer push my luck.

PS: Anyone want to go ride out near 360 & Jester? (ha ha - just kidding).

November 10, 2005

An earlier post expressed the opinion that discussing my law-breaking in an open forum poses a danger to Geocaching; that land managers would use this incident to make the case that the activity is undesirable. What do you think?

Actually, it has been done before.

24.7k · November 10, 2005

I have to agree it's a steep penalty. It would be safer to just write bad checks. Every now and then I hit a trail closed sign and I don't bypass it. There is always another cache.

However I will say if someone decides that the world is best served if we all just stay on paved areas, home, work, the store and that's to be our life because all trails are closed everwhere. I'd become a criminal and go fishing anyway.

Edited November 10, 2005 by Renegade Knight

3.8k · November 10, 2005

Let's take a six pack or two, and I'm right there with you, RK. :lol: :lol:

3.2k · November 11, 2005

Trail Closed?? But not Area Closed? Fine, just stay off the trail.

November 11, 2005

And Bingo was his name-o...

Jelly

38.2k · November 11, 2005

man-eating cougar rampage,

If they don't want people entering the area, that's all they have to put on the signs:

Trail Closed Due to Man Eating Cougar

1.8k · November 11, 2005

If they don't want people entering the area, that's all they have to put on the signs:

Trail Closed Due to Man Eating Cougar

Works for me ...

November 11, 2005

I am not sure why a man would be eating a cougar, but I might want to see it.

November 11, 2005

That is more scary than a cougar eating man, no wait........

3.9k · November 11, 2005

We need an attribute for this so the cache can have it's own icon.

Is this thread going a bit far off topic? Has it run it's course?

November 11, 2005

man-eating cougar rampage,

If they don't want people entering the area, that's all they have to put on the signs:

Trail Closed Due to Man Eating Cougar

actually that is what they (Coronado NF) put on the signs when they closed half of the catalina moutnains (including Sabino Canyon, one of the most popular recreation areas in the state) just because there had been 5 mtn lion sightings in 2 weeks and one of the sightings resulted in a growl toward a kid. The mountain was closed, a couple animals were shot and several more trapped. They claimed the area closure was for public safety but when people started to challenge that and started going in anyways, then they said that it was closed due to a federal investigation (of the animals) and started chargin people not just with tresspass but interfering with a federal invetigation (some people messed with traps and those people got tampering with federal property and criminal damage but even an inocent hiker could have faced the federal investigation)

November 11, 2005

I'm a volunteer for the Cleveland Metroparks and about 3 years ago a portion of a trail was closed when a killdeer chose to nest in the middle of a trail. A detour that added less than .25 miles to the hike was clearly posted.

When one of the other volunteers went to check on the nest they found a set of boot prints leading up to the nest area and right through it. Some hiker had ignored the sign and stepped on the nest while cutting through.

Sometimes the signs are there for a good reason.

11.3k · November 11, 2005

And sometimes they aren't . . .

Two years ago, devastating fires raged through the San Diego area burning thousands of homes and thousands of acres of park and forest land.

A small bridge that spanned an eroded gully in a huge Regional Park burned. Probably because of all the financial difficulties in San Diego, the bridge has not been rebuilt, so the "Closed Trail" sign remains.

Many people access that side of the park on that trail by walking down in and back up the other side of the erosion. Recently, someone put a homemade bridge suitable for a mountain bike across the gap.

When the "official" bridge will get rebuilt is anybody's guess, but two years is a long time to have a trail closed . . .

November 11, 2005

man-eating cougar rampage,

If they don't want people entering the area, that's all they have to put on the signs:

Trail Closed Due to Man Eating Cougar

So does that mean women are safe on the trail?

5k · November 11, 2005

Here's a cache where a surprising number of people have ignored the Road Closed signs:

Castle in the Sand

Jamie

November 11, 2005

If land managers are reading this thread, I'd also suggest that trail closure notices provide more information as to rationale and consequences.

Why would having a rationale make any difference? If the sign says the trail is closed, then it is closed. Would a rationale on there that you didn't agree with justify ignoring a closed trail sign? I think putting a contact name on the sign to get further information would be good though.

I agree there are a lot of trails that get closed for longer that they should be, or even at all, if you disagree with a closer, work through legal means to get it changed. There could be reasons unknown to you about why a trail has been closed.

3.8k · November 11, 2005

I'm a volunteer for the Cleveland Metroparks and about 3 years ago a portion of a trail was closed when a killdeer chose to nest in the middle of a trail...

Those pesky killdeers.

I'm surprised they closed the trail. I realize that all migratory birds are protected species, and that killdeer is a short distance migrant. Around here, killdeer are quite plentiful.

Now if killdeer were endangered, I would understand, but they're not, and although it would be against the law anyway to destroy a migrant bird's nest, I don't see the point in closing the trail.

Let's say there was a whole rookery of killdeer there; that may be a good reason to close a trail.

Regardless, because I don't like unexpected encounters with the DNR, if there was an official sign saying detour, I would likely obey it.

You know my motto: "The other nine out of ten voices in my head say don't do it!" :rolleyes:

2.1k · November 11, 2005

If land managers are reading this thread, I'd also suggest that trail closure notices provide more information as to rationale and consequences.

Why would having a rationale make any difference? If the sign says the trail is closed, then it is closed. Would a rationale on there that you didn't agree with justify ignoring a closed trail sign? I think putting a contact name on the sign to get further information would be good though.

I agree there are a lot of trails that get closed for longer that they should be, or even at all, if you disagree with a closer, work through legal means to get it changed. There could be reasons unknown to you about why a trail has been closed.

I think *some* rational is important. Quite often trails are closed because the parks don't want to be sued because someone twister their ankle.

Recently around here, we had all kinds of flooding. There was one trail in particular that was closed quite obviously due to a 10' section of the paved path being washed away (resulting in about a 4' drop). Not something you'd want to cycle in to without knowing what was comming, but perfectly safe if you're walking.

Its cases like this that make people a little cavalier about bypassing 'trail closed' signs. I want to get from A->B, the only way through is to go across a little section of trail 100' long, with no way around it. As far as I can see, the only reason for the trail being closed is someone might stub their toe. Ya know what, I'm probably going to walk on that little stretch of trail. A small addendum saying "due to ....." might make me change my mind (like 'bear in area' or 'wildlife management' or 'landslide hazard'). If its simply 'unsafe conditions', I may go ahead and judge for myself if the conditions are unsafe.

November 11, 2005

If land managers are reading this thread, I'd also suggest that trail closure notices provide more information as to rationale and consequences.

Why would having a rationale make any difference? If the sign says the trail is closed, then it is closed. Would a rationale on there that you didn't agree with justify ignoring a closed trail sign? I think putting a contact name on the sign to get further information would be good though.

I agree there are a lot of trails that get closed for longer that they should be, or even at all, if you disagree with a closer, work through legal means to get it changed. There could be reasons unknown to you about why a trail has been closed.

This particular decision was rather heavy-handed, in that they closed an entire 5.5-mile trail because a 1/4-mile section 4 miles into the trail was at the edge of a burn area. So the proper action would have been to close only the affected portion of the trail.

That aside, if the sign had said "Trail Closed, $5000 fine/6mo. jail for violation" and possibly also "Sensitive Burn Area, 4.5mi." it would have gotten my attention (the penalty) and made me less suspicious that the closure was for bureaucratic convenience. I had recently hiked the first 4-mile stretch and knew it to be unaffected.

Look, I understand that the authorities that maintain these trails are often in possession of information that Mule Ears doesn't have, and they must weigh factors, such as liability and conformity with a variety of regulations that aren't Mule Ears' concern, but they are always going to err on the side of CYA. It's just unfortunate that they'll close a whole trail for damage to a small portion of it, and that they'll impose draconian penalties for failure to comply with their instructions.

November 12, 2005

As far as I can see, the only reason for the trail being closed

That aside, if the sign had said "Trail Closed, $5000 fine/6mo. jail for violation"

It sounds to me like justification for ignoring a trail closed sign. So you don't see why the trail is closed so you should be able to just go ahead and use it. The fines are not posted so there should be no penalty for going on a closed trail.

Ibycus, you gave the example,

"Recently around here, we had all kinds of flooding. There was one trail in particular that was closed quite obviously due to a 10' section of the paved path being washed away (resulting in about a 4' drop). Not something you'd want to cycle in to without knowing what was comming, but perfectly safe if you're walking."

As far as you can see, that is the only reason the trail is closed. How do you know it would be perfectly safe if you're walking? How about things you can't see? Like maybe the rains damaged the trail bed. The trail maybe there, but the extra weight of a hiker might cause it to colapse. You go on to say,

"Ya know what, I'm probably going to walk on that little stretch of trail. A small addendum saying "due to ....." might make me change my mind. "

Why should that extra little part change your mind? The part of the sign that says trail closed should have already made your mind up to stay off the trail.

Mule Ears, your argument sounds like you are saying, "If I can afford the fine, then I'm going to ignore the sign."

"This particular decision was rather heavy-handed, in that they closed an entire 5.5-mile trail because a 1/4-mile section 4 miles into the trail was at the edge of a burn area. So the proper action would have been to close only the affected portion of the trail.

How do you know that was the only reason it was closed? The fact is the sign said trail closed, so the trail was closed. If you think it shouldn't be, follow the proper and legal procedures to get it reopened. Ignoring the warning is not the way to do it.

November 12, 2005

Yes, Sir Elmo, I do know that the fire damage is the reason for the closure. How I know is that it is the reason stated in the CNF press release (link in original post). Unless they are lying or in error, the fire damage is the reason.

If I seem to be saying that I will violate any law whose fine I can afford, then (by similar logic) you could be saying that since no one should ever violate any law, then no penalty is excessive (since it should never need to be applied). So why not the death penalty for any or every infraction?

Look, my primary point is that $5000 and/or 6 months in jail is disproportionate to the violation of an administrative decision. In a perfect world the trail would be marked "Fire damage, hike at own risk."

November 12, 2005

Actually the only sign ever needed is "Hike at your own risk".

6.1k · November 12, 2005

Look, my primary point is that $5000 and/or 6 months in jail is disproportionate to the violation of an administrative decision. In a perfect world the trail would be marked "Fire damage, hike at own risk."

I completely agree. A penalty such as $5000 fine/6 mo. jail for hiking on a closed trail? Where is this trail? Is it in the rose garden of the white house? Is it on the runway of a military airport? They threaten jail time for those pesky hikers, while someone who drives recklessly and kills a few people gets probation, or the crackhead who breaks into people's houses gets 30 days. Perhaps you could embezzle several hundred thousand dollars from a charity for that kind of punishment. Excuse the rant, I'm just getting disgusted with our fine lawmakers.

Back to lurking. <poof>

2.1k · November 12, 2005

"Recently around here, we had all kinds of flooding. There was one trail in particular that was closed quite obviously due to a 10' section of the paved path being washed away (resulting in about a 4' drop). Not something you'd want to cycle in to without knowing what was comming, but perfectly safe if you're walking."
As far as you can see, that is the only reason the trail is closed. How do you know it would be perfectly safe if you're walking? How about things you can't see? Like maybe the rains damaged the trail bed. The trail maybe there, but the extra weight of a hiker might cause it to colapse.

Well lets see, I can see the damage, I can see both sides of the trail, up and down, I can see where the water cut through, I've got a fairly reasonable idea what is under my feet (heck I can see a cross section of the ground where the trail cut through), there is a major traffic bridge over my head which has cars running over it that hasn't been closed down (so things are pretty stable), I can tell there has already been significant traffic on the pathway since the flooding, if the ground did give way (as unlikely as that might be) the drop wouldn't have been that significant. What I'm getting at, is I made a judgement call.

To me, just because someone else tells me not to do something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea. I weigh what they have said, the consequences, I evaluate my situation, weigh out the inconvenience factor, and make a decision to break the rule, and I know I'm not alone on this. So yes, if they want people to stay off a section of trail, then they should treat them like adults, and tell them why. I'm not 6 years old anymore. "Because I said so" isn't valid justification. In the case where you mentioned earlier with the detour posted, I would certainly have taken the detour. I'm not saying I need to know the exact reason every time that a trail is closed, but to be given some idea would be helpful.

You go on to say,

"Ya know what, I'm probably going to walk on that little stretch of trail. A small addendum saying "due to ....." might make me change my mind. "
Why should that extra little part change your mind? The part of the sign that says trail closed should have already made your mind up to stay off the trail.

As I said before, essentially this boils down to wanting some justification as to why they don't want me there. Safety considerations are very broad. When a decision is made to close of a stretch of trail due to 'unsafe conditions', it is often based on a 'least common denominator' approach. Could the least physically able person here make it through the trail? If the trail was previously wheel chair accessible, and is no longer, they might decide to close the trail simply because a wheel chair can't make it through.

If that is the case, why should I stay off the trail? Because they told me to? Sorry that doesn't cut it.

Mule Ears, your argument sounds like you are saying, "If I can afford the fine, then I'm going to ignore the sign."

"This particular decision was rather heavy-handed, in that they closed an entire 5.5-mile trail because a 1/4-mile section 4 miles into the trail was at the edge of a burn area. So the proper action would have been to close only the affected portion of the trail.

How do you know that was the only reason it was closed? The fact is the sign said trail closed, so the trail was closed. If you think it shouldn't be, follow the proper and legal procedures to get it reopened. Ignoring the warning is not the way to do it.

I frequently walk through doors that say "Authorized Personel only" or simply "do not enter". Nobody authorized be to enter, but I know why those signs are there, so I'm comfortable ignoring them. Now there *may* be things on the other side that I'm not aware of, but I maintain that those rules do not apply to me.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question, it may seem ridiculous, but I assure you I'm looking for a serious answer.

Suppose tomorrow, what ever legislative body exists in what ever country you happen to live in (can't be bothered to check your profile), suppose they pass in to law, by all due process and consideration that all men over the age of 25 must wear tin foil hats for a minimum 8 hours a day. They impose and enforce strict fines for not doing so. Should all men over 25 wear tin foil hats for 8 hours a day? Why or why not?

Again, I assure you, I am looking for a serious answer, and it is entirely relevant to our discussion.

4.5k · November 12, 2005

We don't have cougers here in the NY Metro area - at least none that I'm aware of :rolleyes: If I saw a Trail Closed but not Area Closed sign I would figure there's a blockage, fallen tree or some other problem on the trail itself that I could be careful about while going through or bushwacking around. If there's nothing posted on the cache page and the cache is still active, that would be even more support that the sign really does not mean that I have to stay totally out of the area.

November 12, 2005

Again, I assure you, I am looking for a serious answer, and it is entirely relevant to our discussion.

What I see you asking for is support to your position to justify breaking rules. If you don't agree with a rule that you are required to obey, you need to follow the rule until you can get it changed or pay the price of not following the rule.

2.1k · November 12, 2005

Again, I assure you, I am looking for a serious answer, and it is entirely relevant to our discussion.

What I see you asking for is support to your position to justify breaking rules. If you don't agree with a rule that you are required to obey, you need to follow the rule until you can get it changed or pay the price of not following the rule.

So you think they should wear tin-foil hats....

Actually I don't think you're required to obey a law that doesn't make sense. A non-sensical law does not in my opinion create an obligation.

From what I can tell you think you're required to obey any law, as long as its been properly passed and has gone through all the legal proceedure.

At least we know where we each stand.

November 12, 2005

Mr. Mule Ears Goes to Washington

OK, not Washington exactly, but I have sent the following email to the contact address listed on the Coronado National Forest web site.

I have some questions regarding the post-Florida-fire closure of the Walker Basin Trail. The actual trail segment I have in mind may include other trails--I'm referring to the route from Tunnel Spring in Gardner Canyon and going 5.5 miles south to Walker Basin.

My questions:

(1) The closure appears to apply to this entire trail (as there is a closure sign at the Tunnel Spring trailhead), but the first real contact with the burned area is about 4 miles into the trail (from Tunnel Spring). If you include portions of the trail that are downhill from the burn, but not necessarily in contact with it, the unaffected portion might extend 2.75 to 3 miles in from Tunnel Spring. Given these conditions, is it necessary to close the entire trail?

(2) On 10/29, there were quite a few hunters in the area around the trail, and some carried out their deer by hiking along the trail. Were they in violation of the trail ban and liable to the $5000 fine/6 mos. jail? It seems likely that they intercepted the trail after bushwhacking around the area and had not seen the sign at the trailhead. Would this affect their liability?

(3) Under what circumstances would a hiker receive the full brunt of the maximum $5000/6 mos. jail penalty? Would there have to be aggravating circumstances, or would just being found on the trail be sufficient? I understand the need to cooperate with recovery efforts, but it seems like a very steep penalty.

(4) Wouldn't the closure signs be more effective if they included the potential fine/jail time? I only discovered this information after visiting the Coronado National Forest web site.

Please don't misconstrue my questions--I get that a huge effort will be required to recover from this devastating fire. But I'll admit to being completely shocked at the magnitude of the fine, not to mention the possibility of jail for hiking on a closed trail.

Regardless of the response, it's likely to be an enlightening civics lesson.

November 13, 2005

Actually I don't think you're required to obey a law that doesn't make sense.

Yes, I think we know where each of us stand. You feel you are above the law if you feel a law doesn't make sense. How do you come to such a conclusion as not being required to obay a law if you don't think it makes sense? I would love to hear you use that excuse in front of a judge to justify your actions.

From what I can tell you think you're required to obey any law, as long as its been properly passed and has gone through all the legal proceedure.

No matter how stupid or silly a law seems, you are required to obey that law or pay the price for violating it, regardless if you know, or don't know, what the penalty is for violating the law.

2.1k · November 13, 2005

Actually I don't think you're required to obey a law that doesn't make sense.

Yes, I think we know where each of us stand. You feel you are above the law if you feel a law doesn't make sense. How do you come to such a conclusion as not being required to obay a law if you don't think it makes sense? I would love to hear you use that excuse in front of a judge to justify your actions.

From what I can tell you think you're required to obey any law, as long as its been properly passed and has gone through all the legal proceedure.

No matter how stupid or silly a law seems, you are required to obey that law or pay the price for violating it, regardless if you know, or don't know, what the penalty is for violating the law.

Guess I've taken one too many philosophy courses...

My feeling is that in order for law to be law, it must be grounded in reason. A law which is not grounded in reason is not a law, and we have no obligation to obey it (under some schools of thought we may have an obligation to disobey it, this is where a lot of the civil disobedience comes in, but I won't go that far).

Actually AFAIK, you often aren't required to pay the price for violating stupid or silly laws, if you can show that the law isn't consistent with other laws, or is contradictory in some fashion, it is at this point that a law will often be struck down. The tin foil hat law which I invented earlier could probably be shown to violate a number of your personal rights, and thus would likely be struck down, but if no one disobeyed it, then guess what, it never gets to court, and we all have to wear tin foil hats.

Fun case that came before the supreme court of Canada a while back. By the letter of the law, about 95% of provincial legislation passed in Manitoba was in fact not law (they screwed up and passed it wrong, and had been doing that for about the last 100 years). Problem was, part of the legislation that was passed was how the Manitoba legislature was constituted, which meant that they couldn't legally fix the matter themselves (based on the letter of the law). You know what the supreme court said 'The way the law is set up doesn't make sense. Don't be stupid fix the problem and get over it'. Law didn't make sense, supreme court said 'ignore it'.

My guess is, if it came before a judge, that I was being given 6 months jail time for walking on a section of trail that was perfectly safe, the judge would declare the sentence to be out of proportion to the crime. (then again, I'm no lawyer)

Sure there may be consequences if you're seen violating it, but I don't see that as being the same thing as having an obligation to obey it (I might however be obliged to obey it). This is not the same thing as seeing myself as 'above the law', or anything like it.

November 13, 2005

I'm going to close this topic as I think it's entering its terminal spiral. I will open a new topic when/if I receive answers to my questions from the Coronado National Forest. Thanks to all who contributed.

We're Geo-criminals!

Recommended Posts