GEOCACHING BANNED IN NH

[+sbell111]

It looks like they are investigating this as a crime

 

The careful wording of the police statement:

"While we continue to investigate these incidents, we want those that are involved in these games to understand these are not innocent games of play and are causing public alarm."

 

Seems to minimally lay the groundwork for the possibility of future misdemeanor prosecutions (see the very last line on this page).

 

Not sure where the claims of felony prosecution are coming from but hey, I'm not a lawyer...

III. He purposely causes a breach of the peace, public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creates a risk thereof, by:

(a.) Making loud or unreasonable noises in a public place, or making loud or unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place or other private places, which noises would disturb a person of average sensibilities; or

(b.) Disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility; or

(c.) Disrupting any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority.

I think that a good lawyer could beat it. Edited February 6, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

The number of caches continues to grow. Of course this is going to result in an increase in the number of caches found by muggles and reported to the authorities.

 

This is not evidence of anything other than the fact that there are more caches (in total) out there.

 

I disagree. The people that are causing these incidents are "typically" inexperienced cachers (which makes total sense). As the game grows there is a much larger (and more difficult to manage) population of newbies placing caches. So if Groundspeak stopped inexperienced cachers from placing caches until they gained experience and a clear understanding of the guidelines; it would help.

Edited February 6, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

The number of caches continues to grow. Of course this is going to result in an increase in the number of caches found by muggles and reported to the authorities.

 

This is not evidence of anything other than the fact that there are more caches (in total) out there.

I disagree. The people that are causing these incidents are "typically" inexperienced cachers (which makes total sense). As the game grows there is a much larger (and more difficult to manage) population of newbies placing caches. So if Groundspeak stopped inexperienced cachers from placing cachers until they gained experience and a clear understanding of the guidelines; it would help.

Why don't you start a thread about it over in the GC.com area? Edited February 6, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

The number of caches continues to grow. Of course this is going to result in an increase in the number of caches found by muggles and reported to the authorities.

 

This is not evidence of anything other than the fact that there are more caches (in total) out there.

I disagree. The people that are causing these incidents are "typically" inexperienced cachers (which makes total sense). As the game grows there is a much larger (and more difficult to manage) population of newbies placing caches. So if Groundspeak stopped inexperienced cachers from placing cachers until they gained experience and a clear understanding of the guidelines; it would help.

Why don't you start a thread about it over in the GC.com area?

Good idea! Edited February 6, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Snoogans]

The number of caches continues to grow. Of course this is going to result in an increase in the number of caches found by muggles and reported to the authorities.

 

This is not evidence of anything other than the fact that there are more caches (in total) out there.

 

I disagree. The people that are causing these incidents are "typically" inexperienced cachers (which makes total sense). As the game grows there is a much larger (and more difficult to manage) population of newbies placing caches. So if Groundspeak stopped inexperienced cachers from placing caches until they gained experience and a clear understanding of the guidelines; it would help.

 

How would one prove experience? Some arbitrary number of finds? Time as a member? What?

 

Here's an example of how arbitrary criteria could turn people off to geocaching:

 

My sister and bro-in-law love to cache on trips. They have done somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 caches. They ONLY got an account to prove that they could maintain my caches near where they live. Their account shows less than a dozen finds and they almost never log on unless they need coords. They'd rather be outside enjoying their surroundings than plodding away on a computer logging all their finds and that's perfectly OK. Now, suppose they decided to start placing caches? How many hoops do you think they would be willing to jump through? I know 'em well and the answer is NONE? Big loss for geocaching because they live in one of the most beautiful places in the world.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Snoogans

[+Sagefox]

never mind...

Edited February 6, 2007 by Team Sagefox

[+Billk72]

Ok I missed this post when it started or would have commented much earlier. I agree a guidelines should be strictly enforced.

 

I suggest before a urban area cache is published it should be investigated if that means a list of cachers willing to volunteer be put in a database. when a cache is placed and under review the reviewer can send the info to the nearest volunteers to investigate it. The volunteers report should contain pics of the area and the cache location.

 

I am sorry but I fully agree that the public has the right to be concerned about people just wandering around messing with a device then leaving the area. Also though the Police and press are morons if terrorist didn't have the idea to use caching to disguise their activity they do now.

[+gh patriot]

[+baloo&bd]

Have caches been banned in Hew Hampshire yet?

 

[+Snoogans]

Have caches been banned in Hew Hampshire yet?

 

 

 

I hear they have a team of lawyers working in shifts so they can draft a bill and get it passed sometime tomorrow.

[+TrailGators]

The number of caches continues to grow. Of course this is going to result in an increase in the number of caches found by muggles and reported to the authorities.

 

This is not evidence of anything other than the fact that there are more caches (in total) out there.

 

I disagree. The people that are causing these incidents are "typically" inexperienced cachers (which makes total sense). As the game grows there is a much larger (and more difficult to manage) population of newbies placing caches. So if Groundspeak stopped inexperienced cachers from placing caches until they gained experience and a clear understanding of the guidelines; it would help.

 

How would one prove experience? Some arbitrary number of finds? Time as a member? What?

 

Here's an example of how arbitrary criteria could turn people off to geocaching:

 

My sister and bro-in-law love to cache on trips. They have done somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 caches. They ONLY got an account to prove that they could maintain my caches near where they live. Their account shows less than a dozen finds and they almost never log on unless they need coords. They'd rather be outside enjoying their surroundings than plodding away on a computer logging all their finds and that's perfectly OK. Now, suppose they decided to start placing caches? How many hoops do you think they would be willing to jump through? I know 'em well and the answer is NONE? Big loss for geocaching because they live in one of the most beautiful places in the world.

To answer your question: time as a member. Why does everyone take everything to an extreme? I was simply suggesting that a brand new cacher has no experience at all. He can read the guidelines but IMHO the guidelines become clearer after you meet other cachers or visit the forums and ask questions. If some new cacher misinterprets a guideline it is black eye for all of us. So what is the harm of having a new cacher wait a few months to hide his/her first cache? It wouldn't have bothered me one bit if that was the policy when I joined. Edited February 6, 2007 by TrailGators

[+edscott]

For all the folks that have been saying that placing stupid micros doesn't hurt anyone and it's just how THEY play the game. Here's the wakeup call and this is where geocaching is going if it doesn't get under control. It's not the well hidden caches in the woods that cause these problems. It's the stupid micros hidden under lampposts that get the bomb squad called out.

 

Time to wake up and make some needed changes to the game.

 

I was about to write something similar, so I'll just say ditto.

 

Agree agree agree... but so many people just don't get the point. Folks should not get hysterical about a film cannister, but they do and nothing we do will change that. Politicians should not jump to make unnecessary laws but we can't stop that either. Better to take the hobby back into the woods where it belongs.

[+R.O.B]

“It’s an interesting hobby, but they need to find a better place to do it,” said McQuade.

 

 

 

MCQUADE's a <<removed by moderator>>

 

I thought Mcquade was a Lone Wolf.....

Edited February 6, 2007 by Moose Mob

[+Snoogans]

How would one prove experience? Some arbitrary number of finds? Time as a member? What?

 

To answer your question: time as a member. Why does everyone take everything to an extreme? I was simply suggesting that a brand new cacher has no experience at all. He can read the guidelines but IMHO the guidelines become clearer after you meet other cachers or visit the forums and ask questions. If some new cacher misinterprets a guideline it is black eye for all of us. So what is the harm of having a new cacher wait a few months to hide his/her first cache? It wouldn't have bothered me one bit if that was the policy when I joined.

 

 

Not going to any extremes here. Just testing your logic from an if it ain't broke, don't fix it perspective.....

 

 

So you say time as a member......BUT, then you say "after you meet other cachers or visit the forums and ask questions," which is a bit more involved than just time wouldn't you say?

 

 

Suppose they don't care to use the forums and meet other cachers or even log their finds. What then? Is it still just time?

Edited February 6, 2007 by Snoogans

[+TMAACA]

Have caches been banned in Hew Hampshire yet?

 

 

 

I hear they have a team of lawyers working in shifts so they can draft a bill and get it passed sometime tomorrow.

 

They need to take a long hard look at clamping down on "Huckle, Buckle, Beanstalk" in the schools too. That is where all this depravity got its start...

[+Moose Mob]

How would one prove experience? Some arbitrary number of finds? Time as a member? What?

 

To answer your question: time as a member. Why does everyone take everything to an extreme? I was simply suggesting that a brand new cacher has no experience at all. He can read the guidelines but IMHO the guidelines become clearer after you meet other cachers or visit the forums and ask questions. If some new cacher misinterprets a guideline it is black eye for all of us. So what is the harm of having a new cacher wait a few months to hide his/her first cache? It wouldn't have bothered me one bit if that was the policy when I joined.

 

 

Not going to any extremes here. Just testing your logic from an if it ain't broke, don't fix it perspective.....

 

 

So you say time as a member......BUT, then you say "after you meet other cachers or visit the forums and ask questions," which is a bit more involved than just time wouldn't you say?

 

 

Suppose they don't care to use the forums and meet other cachers or even log their finds. What then? Is it still just time?

Enough tangent please, let's get back on topic

[+Snoogans]

Have caches been banned in Hew Hampshire yet?

 

 

 

I hear they have a team of lawyers working in shifts so they can draft a bill and get it passed sometime tomorrow.

 

They need to take a long hard look at clamping down on "Huckle, Buckle, Beanstalk" in the schools too. That is where all this depravity got its start...

 

 

Simple. BAN RECESS!!!

[+Snoogans]

Enough tangent please, let's get back on topic

 

 

You should go ahead and lock this one. The title alone makes it unworthy of serious discussion and I really don't think the OP will be back to face the music.

[+TMAACA]

Have caches been banned in Hew Hampshire yet?

 

 

 

I hear they have a team of lawyers working in shifts so they can draft a bill and get it passed sometime tomorrow.

 

They need to take a long hard look at clamping down on "Huckle, Buckle, Beanstalk" in the schools too. That is where all this depravity got its start...

 

 

Simple. BAN RECESS!!!

I think recess might already technically banned in New Hampshire under this portion of their disorderly conduct code:

 

"III. He purposely causes a breach of the peace, public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creates a risk thereof, by:

(a.) Making loud or unreasonable noises in a public place, or making loud or unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place or other private places, which noises would disturb a person of average sensibilities;"

 

I think the world needs a clearer definition of "average sensibilites" than more rules regarding placement of caches... I dread the day when I open the guidelines for listing a cache and they read like the above paragraph!

[+pghlooking]

check out my new cache containers.

 

They are part of a multi stage cache, I put about 5 of these cache containers under various bridges in NH.

 

 

 

 

*****IMPORTANT note, this is a joke, please don't arrest me and call me a terrist. I've never even been to NH.****

You could always be lucky enough to have some unsuspecting onlooker discover your cache, open it to see what you were doing, and see this first...

Yea this was a bright idea. But at least they stayed away from their first idea to send out to our caches in the form of a TB...

And THIS TB is allowed on GC.

 

With the scare in NH maybe it is time we started increasing the policing of our own caching community before the authorities do it. I am sure they won't be as lenient as we will be.

[+gof1]

check out my new cache containers.

 

They are part of a multi stage cache, I put about 5 of these cache containers under various bridges in NH.

 

 

 

 

*****IMPORTANT note, this is a joke, please don't arrest me and call me a terrist. I've never even been to NH.****

You could always be lucky enough to have some unsuspecting onlooker discover your cache, open it to see what you were doing, and see this first...

Yea this was a bright idea. But at least they stayed away from their first idea to send out to our caches in the form of a TB...

And THIS TB is allowed on GC.

 

With the scare in NH maybe it is time we started increasing the policing of our own caching community before the authorities do it. I am sure they won't be as lenient as we will be.

 

At the risk of suffering personal fire damage, if I found a TB like one of these it would never be heard from again. What in Gods name were they thinking?!

[+Harry Dolphin]

Hmm... I think any future caches I place will be in clear containers - I noticed that on the "mayhem" page none of the exploded ones were see-through.

 

I very purposefully didn't post a link to the dolphin incident this past week (a dolphin in a Florida marine park was playing with a toy in the pool and someone called the bomb squad). The "bomb" as they called it was a "glass jar with a black substance in it, wrapped by a white substance" (?).

 

I'm innocent! It must have been a different dolphin!

[+Retcon]

Did you read the log? He wrote that he logged it because he was standing there while they blew it up. He never opened it and signed it.

 

Then he didn't find it. Bogus log.

 

Thank you. That made me laugh out loud, which is something this thread desperately needed.

[+Snoogans]

 

And THIS TB is allowed on GC.

 

With the scare in NH maybe it is time we started increasing the policing of our own caching community before the authorities do it. I am sure they won't be as lenient as we will be.

 

At the risk of suffering personal fire damage, if I found a TB like one of these it would never be heard from again. What in Gods name were they thinking?!

 

 

I don't blame you. That would ONLY be considered a religious icon in one Planet of the Apes movie that I know of, so religious persecution and PC persecution as a motive are out. You'd be doing the whole sport a favor.

[Trinity's Crew]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the picture of the rather cartoonish stick of "dynamite" is the actual TB. The other is just a picture of a (very ill-conceived) prototype that wasn't used.

[Mr.Yuck]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the picture of the rather cartoonish stick of "dynamite" is the actual TB. The other is just a picture of a (very ill-conceived) prototype that wasn't used.

 

Was there a request for cartoonish dynamite?

 

[+mudsneaker]

I dont usually do this, but....IBT

 

[+pghlooking]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the picture of the rather cartoonish stick of "dynamite" is the actual TB. The other is just a picture of a (very ill-conceived) prototype that wasn't used.

You are correct, and that was what was said in the first post of it. Neither one is a bright idea though. How cartoonish does it look through the side of a tupperware container to some local security guard looking to make it big? Just because the owner realized how dumb the first idea was doesn't mean the second idea was a whole lot brighter. Why put yourself, and in this case someone else in that position since once it is released, you have it in other people's caches. If it ends up here I could always just mail it back to the owner. i am sure the USPS will think it is a pretty funny cartoonish joke.

[Trinity's Crew]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the picture of the rather cartoonish stick of "dynamite" is the actual TB. The other is just a picture of a (very ill-conceived) prototype that wasn't used.

You are correct, and that was what was said in the first post of it. Neither one is a bright idea though. How cartoonish does it look through the side of a tupperware container to some local security guard looking to make it big? Just because the owner realized how dumb the first idea was doesn't mean the second idea was a whole lot brighter. Why put yourself, and in this case someone else in that position since once it is released, you have it in other people's caches. If it ends up here I could always just mail it back to the owner. i am sure the USPS will think it is a pretty funny cartoonish joke.

 

I was pretty sure that was what was said, but as the thread progressed it seemed that many people were assuming the TB with the pipe, wires, and electrical tape was actually circulating. The fact that you typed "And this TB is allowed on GC." right underneath of the pipe bomb picture was a little confusing.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+pghlooking]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the picture of the rather cartoonish stick of "dynamite" is the actual TB. The other is just a picture of a (very ill-conceived) prototype that wasn't used.

You are correct, and that was what was said in the first post of it. Neither one is a bright idea though. How cartoonish does it look through the side of a tupperware container to some local security guard looking to make it big? Just because the owner realized how dumb the first idea was doesn't mean the second idea was a whole lot brighter. Why put yourself, and in this case someone else in that position since once it is released, you have it in other people's caches. If it ends up here I could always just mail it back to the owner. i am sure the USPS will think it is a pretty funny cartoonish joke.

 

I was pretty sure that was what was said, but as the thread progressed it seemed that many people were assuming the TB with the pipe, wires, and electrical tape was actually circulating. The fact that you typed "And this TB is allowed on GC." right underneath of the pipe bomb picture was a little confusing.

not really. It linked you right to the TB page that explained it pretty clearly, like I thought I had.

[+shadohart]

Interestingly enough, this fine, articulate gentleman seems to have just had a new cache archived in Portsmouth, NH.

 

I'll take "Things That Make You Go 'Hmmmmmm'" for $500, Alex.

Please tell me that's the guy that got charged, it would make my day!

 

OH please let it be him, charged and fined. I was either part of or watching that conversation (can't remember which) when he inserted his weirdness. He was flamed BTW.

 

The real issue seems to me that it was placed on an electrical panel. Come on, there are better places to put an urban cache. I'll bet even a newbie like me could pick out a few that wouldn't even have to be on private property.

[+1NatureMom]

My Cache page linky

 

So should I archive or temp disable my cache in NH? It is a (micro) match holder tied to a thin gray wire on the grate below the gazebo.

 

What is the public opnion or gc.com's opnion on this? I've just skimmed thru this long thread.

 

Thank you.

[+WeatherednBoston]

Alot of discussions...but not many suggestion on how to stop newbie cachers from placing hides like this:

 

How about some suggestions so Groundspeak can work to prevent this from happening?

 

I suggest:

 

Groundspeak should send out emails periodically to ALL cachers reminding them that hides like this are not allowed. No private property caches without prior permission. Reminding us that we should not place caches near public/private utilities and bridges. No electical box hides...heck I have found MANY MANY caches hidden in this manner in the past 60 days...from Maine to FLorida...in every state!!!!!

[+pghlooking]

The emails won't work and would be a waste of time. Everytime you submit a cache you are checking off a box that says you have permission and such. People are going to hide it and say they have permission. The biggest single deterrent IMO would be to hide find numbers. That is what leads to this kind of thing typically.

[Mr.Yuck]

My Cache page linky

 

So should I archive or temp disable my cache in NH? It is a (micro) match holder tied to a thin gray wire on the grate below the gazebo.

 

What is the public opnion or gc.com's opnion on this? I've just skimmed thru this long thread.

 

Thank you.

 

Seems like a nice micro in a public park. What would you think is wrong with it? Muggles observing people acting strangely looking for it?

[Mr.Yuck]

Interestingly enough, this fine, articulate gentleman seems to have just had a new cache archived in Portsmouth, NH.

 

I'll take "Things That Make You Go 'Hmmmmmm'" for $500, Alex.

Please tell me that's the guy that got charged, it would make my day!

 

OH please let it be him, charged and fined. I was either part of or watching that conversation (can't remember which) when he inserted his weirdness. He was flamed BTW.

 

You wouldn't think it's the same guy, reading his "interview" with the newspaper. I believe he is now quite sorry, and knows what he did wrong. Despite how disturbing that post was the other day.

[+TrailGators]

He admitted that he screwed up as well as archiving all 8 caches that he hid in his first three months.

[+Geoaddict]

Permission. Permission. Permission.

 

and

 

Placement Permission Contact Info on every cache page.

 

'Nuff said.

 

AMEN!!

 

The hider can save himself/herself and the rest of us geocachers a lot of trouble if you get permission. It seems that all the bad publicity that geocaching gets is because the hider violated this cardinal rule: GET PERMISSION!!

 

For an extra measure of safety, let the local police in on the hide, especially if it is an urban or even semi-urban cache. If you work with the local municipality, in most cases they will work with you.

 

A log from one of my hides stated that the young cachers were spotted by a women who reported them to the police. The police drove up and asked them what they were doing and they told him. Because the police officer already knew about geocaching and about the hide from me, he didn't have to detain or question these cachers further.

 

The police and the municipality don't want to spend their limited resources responding to a suspicious container incident. They will appreciate if you work with them ahead of time.

 

Thus endeth the lesson.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Geoaddict

[+TrailGators]

Permission. Permission. Permission.

 

and

 

Placement Permission Contact Info on every cache page.

 

'Nuff said.

 

AMEN!!

I actually agree with theAlabamaRambler! Somebody pinch me...

[+RoadRunner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the picture of the rather cartoonish stick of "dynamite" is the actual TB. The other is just a picture of a (very ill-conceived) prototype that wasn't used.

 

Was there a request for cartoonish dynamite?

 

I think I published that cache.

[+B & Lela]

What kind of idiot is going to wrap a box in duck tape and place it on an electrical device. In this day and age of paranoia it screams suspicious.

[+Blue&Gray]

In my encounters w/ law enforcement, when I mentioned the word geocaching, I found that they were already familiar with the sport and were cool about the whole thing.

 

I agree that people do get crazy sometimes. Once I went on my lunch break (read: broad daylight) with my white, long-sleeved shirt, tie, and name badge on, to get a cache that was a mild walk on a trail which just happened to be adjacent to a school parking lot.

 

When my buddy and I were leaving the site, we were met by a waiting police officer. He was standing beside a stern-faced lady, who was obviously a teacher or administrator at the school that notified the police.

 

He asked what we were doing there, we told him geocaching, he was familiar with it, and that was pretty much the end of the discussion. Yes, siree, I can see how that lady thought two, middle-aged, men in dress clothes posed a serious terrorist threat to the school campus!!! Ridiculous!! Besides, it was a public trail not on school property. Gimme a break!!

 

There's no need to ban micros from parking lots either. If I see signage, or other evidence, of a trespassing prohibition, I comply. I don't hide nor do I hunt in those spots! I imagine the vast majority of our caching colleagues do likewise!!

[+ironman114]

Permission. Permission. Permission.

 

and

 

Placement Permission Contact Info on every cache page.

 

'Nuff said.

 

AMEN!!

 

The hider can save himself/herself and the rest of us geocachers a lot of trouble if you get permission. It seems that all the bad publicity that geocaching gets is because the hider violated this cardinal rule: GET PERMISSION!!

 

For an extra measure of safety, let the local police in on the hide, especially if it is an urban or even semi-urban cache. If you work with the local municipality, in most cases they will work with you.

 

A log from one of my hides stated that the young cachers were spotted by a women who reported them to the police. The police drove up and asked them what they were doing and they told him. Because the police officer already knew about geocaching and about the hide from me, he didn't have to detain or question these cachers further.

 

The police and the municipality don't want to spend their limited resources responding to a suspicious container incident. They will appreciate if you work with them ahead of time.

 

Thus endeth the lesson.

 

I wonder how the Seattle police would take to spending their limited resources hearing about the couple of hundred caches in Seattle city limits? This would work in smaller minicipalities but maybe not so well in larger ones.

[+oprystar]

Could any traditional and typical cache container (ammo can, flare tube, film canister, altoids tin, etc) absolutely pass for NOT being a threat to the uninformed? NO! Not even if properly labeled, and not even of its location. The answer? I don't know, but the lightly marked, see through lock and lock containers would sure help eliminate suspicion about ether the container houses a threat, as anyone could clearly see through them to see the container's contents.

 

Another idea is to bring back the Reverse Caches, even if only in selected areas (maybe in NH if containers are banned or maybe even only in ultra urban areas). Then there is no container hidden to pose a threat to anyone, just pop off a few photos to submit for a smiley. Unless the CIA decides you are a covert spy, then it’s back to the drawing board!

[Clan Riffster]

The best solution to the bomb squad problem is to hide your cache well enough that muggles won't find it.

[+TMAACA]

The best solution to the bomb squad problem is to hide your cache well enough that muggles won't find it.

 

And/or deep enough in the woods so that people aren't seen looking for it... (Not advocating hiding film canisters in the woods here... I would never do that)

[+programmer64]

Here ya go dudes

 

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?he...e9-527ccf997a55

[+flask]

everyone is missing the real point:

 

be honest. would you really notice if new hampshire disappeared?

[+sbell111]

everyone is missing the real point:

 

be honest. would you really notice if new hampshire disappeared?

I was just thinking the same thing. If caching could actually be banned in NH, what would that mean? NH cachers would have to drive something like five minutes farther to find a cache.

Edited February 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+TMAACA]