Is it vandalism...

[+Confucius' Cat]

If a tree falls in the forest...

[+Renegade Knight]

...Blame the people who create the problem, NOT those that want to fix the problem!

 

There is fixing the problem so it goes away and fixing the problem by making a federal case out of it that goes before the grand jury.

 

I rather like the former method. That's why my team would include Keystone, Criminal, Carleenp. or Coyote Red, Not every approver can keep a problem on the downlow and not every forum wolf would make it into a federal case. You have to know who your peeps need to be for the outcome you want.

 

You can fix a problem only to make it worse if you are not careful.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I would think making the problem go away would be the outcome I'M looking for. A cache placed against the guidelines which could potentially irk the landowner needs removed, whatever can be done to achieve this would be what I'm after. I never indicated someone should inform the landowner.

 

If a tree falls in the woods, nature took it's course. If that tree fell because a cacher defaced it for the sake of caching, bad form and something needs to be done!

[+simpjkee]

if to get at a micro, you have to take a nut off a bolt on a sign? I put in the listing that tools will be required. I had a cacher refer to this as vandalism. I was interested in what anyone else thought.

If I was a finder and I showed up, the last thing I would want to do is try to take bolts off signs. Even if i did, and i lost the bolt, I would feel terrible and promptly replace it. Unfortunately, a lot of other human beings would lose the bolt and say "oh well" and walk off like their damage was someone elses problem. If every human was like me, then I would say go ahead and place the cache. Since not everyone is like me, I would say that this is not a good idea and would only cause a problem. There for, I hate it, but I have to vote that it is vandalism just to account for the other humans who will inevitably turn this cache in to vandalism. ya know?

Edited August 31, 2007 by simpjkee

[+sbell111]

This thread is difficult to keep up with. It is discussing way too many specific issues.

 

As for the most recent example, why are 'we' assuming that no permission was received?

[Dinoprophet]

This thread is difficult to keep up with. It is discussing way too many specific issues.

 

As for the most recent example, why are 'we' assuming that no permission was received?

Exactly. I think I might have assumed someone was assuming something about someone else's assumptions.

[+Renegade Knight]

This thread is difficult to keep up with. It is discussing way too many specific issues.

 

As for the most recent example, why are 'we' assuming that no permission was received?

Exactly. I think I might have assumed someone was assuming something about someone else's assumptions.

That's a lot of a**...

[+cmc]

That's a lot of a**...

 

Hehe, nothing wrong with a lotta a**.

 

A few points that the original poster didn't add w/o giving away too much information.

 

Tools are no longer required.

The sign isn't a street/traffic sign. It's in a park parking lot.

The city it's placed in doesn't have any official policies on geocaching, nor did the person I talked to ever hear of geocaching before. So it's probably safe to assume permission wasn't given. Unless I just got the parks department newb.

 

All that being said, and not sure who was the one to change the tools required part - the sign post is pretty scratched up because apparently people have no idea how to use a wrench when it was required.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I would think making the problem go away would be the outcome I'M looking for. A cache placed against the guidelines which could potentially irk the landowner needs removed, whatever can be done to achieve this would be what I'm after. I never indicated someone should inform the landowner.

 

If a tree falls in the woods, nature took it's course. If that tree fell because a cacher defaced it for the sake of caching, bad form and something needs to be done!

Which would NOT be the likely outcome if you took the property manager by the hand and said, "Come here! See what Johnny did...?"

 

If the tree got cut down by a Junior Ranger that thought the tree didn't have permission to grow there, nature did NOT take its course.

 

For "nature to take its course," it has to be left alone.

 

If, after the manager find out about it on his own, the person that placed the damaging cache gets in trouble, so be it. Will caching be banned in that park? Maybe- either way. But I think that outcome is a lot more likely if someone "rats them out" than if the manager simply finds out about it naturally.

 

A rational person does not judge everyone in a group by the actions of a few.

 

No doubt someone at some time or other has graffitied park walls. Does the manager search every person that comes into the park for spray paint? (well, I am assuming the manager was not a former airport security manager)

[+Rockin Roddy]

OK CC, I see you are completely lost here. Read again where I said I NEVER indicated anyone should inform the landowner....read closely so as not to miss it again! Removing said cache BEFORE the landowner sees it would be the best course of action (but I've been saying that all along), NOT having the evidence of a cache in place would surely help to minimize owner knowledge of cacher ignorance.

 

Cripe, you sure are all over the place here...weren't we just talking about a tree being defaced by a cacher? Not if a ranger cut them down? Hard to keep up with you this morning.

[CoyoteRed]

A rational person does not judge everyone in a group by the actions of a few.

Actually, they do when the only examples they see is the behaviors of those directly in front of their faces. You know, the ones that placed the illegal or ill-advised cache.

 

Bad apples and first impressions are a couple of ideas, I think, should be considered in this subject. You don't want a land stewards first impressions to be negative, nor do you want their only experiences to be with those who are problem placers.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I agree wholeheartedly with CR here!

 

I would much rather not have the landowner even equate the vandalism to caching, keeping the negative impressions out of our sport! Stopping the illegal or ill-advised cache placement would be a great first step toward not having problems with landowners (actually, not having any bad caches at all would be best, but we all know this isn't possible).

 

People will make their minds up about caching (or anything else) with first impressions, I'm guessing the bannination of caches in many parks came about because a landowner found a problem cache.

[+Confucius' Cat]

OK CC, I see you are completely lost here. Read again where I said I NEVER indicated anyone should inform the landowner....read closely so as not to miss it again! Removing said cache BEFORE the landowner sees it would be the best course of action (but I've been saying that all along), NOT having the evidence of a cache in place would surely help to minimize owner knowledge of cacher ignorance.

 

Cripe, you sure are all over the place here...weren't we just talking about a tree being defaced by a cacher? Not if a ranger cut them down? Hard to keep up with you this morning.

Well, I read many posts back and I NEVER saw where you indicated one should notify the manager. I am sorry, I ASSuMEd that from the context and from the tone of others' posts.

 

This thread is indeed "all over the place." The OP was about taking a bolt out of a sign. Then the discussion turned to drilling one's own holes... in a telephone pole, in a park bench, etc.

 

There is not any real definition of what we are talking about here.

 

My comments are based primarily on "degrees." I see no danger to a telephone pole because of a hole drilled in it, even if it just happens to have a fake bolt stuck in it. Neither would there be any physical danger for one more hole in a sign post, I mean most of the metal ones have holed every inch or so from the factory, right?

 

Assuming it is a small hole, in a large object like a pole it is very unlikely to be harmful, no matter whether the cacher drilled the hole or Woody the Woodpecker drilled it. The issue of PERMISSION is of course a TOTALLY valid issue.

 

Modifying anyone's property except one's own WITHOUT PERMISSION is wrong. Even stapling your "lost dog" flyer to a telephone pole WITHOUT PERMISSION is wrong, even though "everyone does it."

 

The idea of degrees is this: Apply common sense (to wit- analogy forthcoming (not a metaphor))

 

If I call 911 to report an obviously drunk driver, I am doing a public service and perhaps saving lives.

 

If I call 911 to report a person who passed me very slowly whilst i was very painstakingly driving at the posted speed limit, I have made myself a busybody and a nuisance, and if I do so often enough, I will be regarded by the local PSAP operators as a "nut case" (10-96 in Indiana)

 

In both cases a "wrong" is being committed. In the first case, the outcome could very well be deadly. In the latter, no one is likely to be harmed.

 

So what I'm saying is simply, "judge the impact" both of leaving it be and of calling attention to it. If you find yourself getting riled over petty "wrongs," perhaps it's time to get another hobby where these wrongs aren't slapping you in the face all the time.

[+geomann1]

A rational person does not judge everyone in a group by the actions of a few.

Actually, they do when the only examples they see is the behaviors of those directly in front of their faces. You know, the ones that placed the illegal or ill-advised cache.

 

Bad apples and first impressions are a couple of ideas, I think, should be considered in this subject. You don't want a land stewards first impressions to be negative, nor do you want their only experiences to be with those who are problem placers.

 

I'm going to have to agree with CR on this one, first impressions, and to an even greater degree bad impressions will influence people's reaction to the sport. One problem cache will do more damage, that than good will from many problem-free caches.

 

In my opinion, problem caches are the result of laziness, ignorance, and/or lack of creativity. One can place a quality cache without drilling holes in or otherwise defacing other people's property or locating the cache in area where environmental damage will inevitably occur. It just takes a bit more effort.

[+Glenn]

A rational person does not judge everyone in a group by the actions of a few.

Actually, they do when the only examples they see is the behaviors of those directly in front of their faces. You know, the ones that placed the illegal or ill-advised cache.

 

Bad apples and first impressions are a couple of ideas, I think, should be considered in this subject. You don't want a land stewards first impressions to be negative, nor do you want their only experiences to be with those who are problem placers.

 

It sounds like CR is speaking from experiance. You'd do best by listening to him.

[+TrailGators]

A rational person does not judge everyone in a group by the actions of a few.

Actually, they do when the only examples they see is the behaviors of those directly in front of their faces. You know, the ones that placed the illegal or ill-advised cache.

 

Bad apples and first impressions are a couple of ideas, I think, should be considered in this subject. You don't want a land stewards first impressions to be negative, nor do you want their only experiences to be with those who are problem placers.

 

It sounds like CR is speaking from experiance. You'd do best by listening to him.

Plus the the actions of thoughtful cachers are transparent to land managers, which is what they are supposed to be. So land managers will only see the effects of thoughtless cachers.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I am in no way discounting the value of a first impression. But a reasonable person does not hate people of another ethnicity because their first impression was bad. Likewise a reasonable land manager can get past their first negative contact. We're not talking about a once-in-a-lifetime encounter here (such as a job interview). The manager is going to encounter good cachers as time goes on.

 

In any case, my point has always been that we should not POINT OUT the transgressions of the few to the managers. If we do this, we are guaranteeing a bad first impression if this is the manager's first knowledge of caching.

 

My point is irrelevant if no one is actually advocating POINTING OUT the illegal cache to the manager. However, if you ask the manager if heshe gave permission for the cache, you have just POINTED OUT the existence of the cache. Without going back and re-reading 2 pages, I am quite sure I saw this mentioned.

 

This is what is meant by the old adage "let sleeping dogs lie."