3 rivers park question

[+FireRef]

The thread was closed before I got a chance to ask...

 

It was mentioned that the park considers anyone trespassing who is more than 25' off a trail. I have never heard of this in any park I have been in in 3 states (PA, OH, NY). Is this true? How can you be trespassing in a state park if you are not on marked trails? Sounds like a rather silly policy if true. I could see them restricting access to specific areas, but everything not on a trail?

 

Or is this just a geocaching policy, and only geocaches are trespassing (or geocachers if hunting for them) if beyond this 25'?

 

Or did I read this wrong?

[+admo1972]

I guess it can vary from park to park. I suppose that parks can consider anyone further than 25' of the trail as tresspassing, but I never heard of such a thing. Many parks do have regulations on geocaches, usually the max number that can be in the park, and that geocaches can't be further than a given distance from a trail. Maybe this is what you were think of?

[+sbell111]

I suspect that three rivers is a private park.

 

Look at it this way. If you were to allow me to come on your property to geocache, but told me that there was an area that I was not allowed to be, I would be trespassing if I went to that area.

[+FireRef]

I suspect that three rivers is a private park.

 

Look at it this way. If you were to allow me to come on your property to geocache, but told me that there was an area that I was not allowed to be, I would be trespassing if I went to that area.

 

That would be why I was asking for clarification... the way I see it:

 

1) Everyone permitted everywhere (except for designated specific areas) - common sense

2) Everyone permitted everywhere as above, but geocaches/geocachers only permitted 25' off trail, strange and enough to seriously question what is going on...

3) Everyone restricted to within 25' of trail - wierd, but makes more sense than #2

 

Maybe trespassing was too strong a word in the original post... maybe they just request people not to make new trails... This is why I asked.

Edited August 21, 2007 by FireRef

[+sbell111]

I suspect that three rivers is a private park.

 

Look at it this way. If you were to allow me to come on your property to geocache, but told me that there was an area that I was not allowed to be, I would be trespassing if I went to that area.

 

That would be why I was asking for clarification... the way I see it:

 

1) Everyone permitted everywhere (except for designated specific areas) - common sense

2) Everyone permitted everywhere as above, but geocaches/geocachers only permitted 25' off trail, strange and enough to seriously question what is going on...

3) Everyone restricted to within 25' of trail - wierd, but makes more sense than #2

 

Maybe trespassing was too strong a word in the original post... maybe they just request people not to make new trails... This is why I asked.

I suspect that #3 is correct.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Sounds about right...or if there after hours! (sorry sbell, had to throw that one in).

 

From the conversations with the OP of the other thread, I think there was a misunderstanding. Abra might not have made clear the exact locations of every hide, didn't take the manager to them or whatever. The manager might not have realized the distance discrepancies or didn't check the maps to see (hey, the maps likely wouldn't show distance from trail anyway...right?). When it was brought to the manager's attention, the right action was taken.

 

I'm glad Abra will be replacing some of those hides which are within guidelines and hope they'll work on the others or leave the area for future hiders. It's a learning process, hiding caches, we can't be expected to get it right the first time, but we need to TRY!

 

Talking with and working with your local reviewer is key! They KNOW the rules, they can help you to assure all is well in cache placement. They really are the "big brother" (in a good way) of caching.

 

Some of our hides aren't exactly "koshur" with the rules stated for that park, but the managing team knows this and are fine with this. If a reviewer were to question them (possibly after caching there or even getting complaints from other cachers), I can honestly and proudly show the approval (all permits are on file at the park), sounds like we need to be able to do this more often!

 

It's hard to get approval to place hides AFTER there has been a problem, we need to keep landowners happy if we want to continue to use their lands!

[+Team Cotati]

Many parks do not allow off path hiking. This has zero to do with geocaching. It applies to all users of the park. Sometimes it is related to erosion control and might be temporary in nature. I'd check with the ranger or land manager if it really concerned me that much. In the meantime I'd also abide by the rules for the park and remain on marked trails only.

 

If you do happen to check this out with the park authorities, let us know what they say, will you?

 

Is 3 rivers a private park? Perhaps you could post a link to their information page.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+foundinthewild]

Many parks do not allow off path hiking. This has zero to do with geocaching. It applies to all users of the park. Sometimes it is related to erosion control and might be temporary in nature. I'd check with the ranger or land manager if it really concerned me that much. In the meantime I'd also abide by the rules for the park and remain on marked trails only.

 

If you do happen to check this out with the park authorities, let us know what they say, will you?

 

Is 3 rivers a private park? Perhaps you could post a link to their information page.

It is: http://www.threeriversparkdistrict.org/parks/

[TopangaHiker]

Many parks do not allow off path hiking. This has zero to do with geocaching. It applies to all users of the park. Sometimes it is related to erosion control and might be temporary in nature. I'd check with the ranger or land manager if it really concerned me that much. In the meantime I'd also abide by the rules for the park and remain on marked trails only.

 

If you do happen to check this out with the park authorities, let us know what they say, will you?

 

Is 3 rivers a private park? Perhaps you could post a link to their information page.

It is: http://www.threeriversparkdistrict.org/parks/

 

As FoundInTheWild has kindly posted a map I just want to chime in that 3RP district is not in and of itself a park but an geographical area encompassing many parks. The folks in Minneapolis and it's environs really know how to run a parks and recreation system. I know because I lived near Irving and Franklin for 5 wonderful years.

Sorry, I don't mean to hijack the thread,

[+FireRef]

Ok - and as a private park, they are entitled to do whatever they want. I was concerned that it was a state park and they were doing things either specifically restricting geocachers, or just in general.

 

Thanks for the information.

[+tozainamboku]

Ok - and as a private park, they are entitled to do whatever they want. I was concerned that it was a state park and they were doing things either specifically restricting geocachers, or just in general.

 

Thanks for the information.

Some parks may restrict certain activities to certain areas. Mountain bikers may be restricted to trails, camping only in designated campground, ball play only on designated fields. While it might not make sense, a park manager could certainly decide to restrict geocaching to 25 ft. from a trail. The manager may think that many people going to ths same spot off trail to look for a cache could result in a social trail forming or may be concerned with damage to the area from people wandering around in one spot looking for a cache. So long as the land manager thinks they have a good reason they are within there rights to restrict geocaching. They can even ban it outright. Rather than making it a civil rights issue, it would be better use of your time to educate park managers on the true impacts of geocaching.

[+wimseyguy]

Well said ice cream boy!

And sadly what they usually don't understand is that the closer to the trail you require the cache to be placed, the more likely that a social trail will form.

[+Team Cotati]

Ok - and as a private park, they are entitled to do whatever they want. I was concerned that it was a state park and they were doing things either specifically restricting geocachers, or just in general.

 

Thanks for the information.

 

Private? Not quite: Three Rivers Park District is an independent, special park district established by the State Legislature in 1957. As a special park district, Three Rivers Park District is charged with the responsibilities of acquisition, development and maintenance of large park reserves, regional parks and regional trails for the benefit and use of the citizens of suburban Hennepin County, Scott County, the metropolitan areas, and the State of Minnesota.

 

The Park District works cooperatively with the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, Metropolitan Council and State Legislature as one of ten implementing agencies of the Metropolitan Regional Park System. This system of parks was established in 1974 by the Minnesota State Legislature and collectively serves more than 15 million park guests per year in the seven county metro area, providing outdoor education/recreation facilities, services and programs.

 

You're welcome.

[+Team Cotati]

Well said ice cream boy!

And sadly what they usually don't understand is that the closer to the trail you require the cache to be placed, the more likely that a social trail will form.

 

And what some in here do not seem to understand is that it is not up to each individual to determine which of the public land's usage rules that they think apply to them and the rest be damned. Or is that a part of the geocaching.com site's guidelines that I have managed to miss?

Edited August 21, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+Team Cotati]

And even if it were 'private' there are limits upon what they can and cannot do on their land. Just like it is for every single citizen land owner in this country.

[+FireRef]

Well said ice cream boy!

And sadly what they usually don't understand is that the closer to the trail you require the cache to be placed, the more likely that a social trail will form.

 

And what some in here do not seem to understand is that it is not up to each individual to determine which of the public land's usage rules that they think apply to them and the rest be damned. Or is that a part of the geocaching.com site's guidelines that I have managed to miss?

 

No - it is up to the individual to make sure the land use rules that DO apply to the activity in question are being followed. If they disagree with those rules, then they need to take that up with the appropriate authorities.

 

Nice statement of the history of the park system. However, I don't consider it to be a public park when, if you read the pages from the earlier link, you need a permit or license to do just about ANYTHING in that park system. A public park doesn't make you get a piece of paper to do just about anything on it.

[+Team Cotati]

Well said ice cream boy!

And sadly what they usually don't understand is that the closer to the trail you require the cache to be placed, the more likely that a social trail will form.

 

And what some in here do not seem to understand is that it is not up to each individual to determine which of the public land's usage rules that they think apply to them and the rest be damned. Or is that a part of the geocaching.com site's guidelines that I have managed to miss?

 

No - it is up to the individual to make sure the land use rules that DO apply to the activity in question are being followed. If they disagree with those rules, then they need to take that up with the appropriate authorities.

 

Nice statement of the history of the park system. However, I don't consider it to be a public park when, if you read the pages from the earlier link, you need a permit or license to do just about ANYTHING in that park system. A public park doesn't make you get a piece of paper to do just about anything on it.

 

Unfortunately it is a public park. It just so happens that this public park has rules and procedures with which you disagree. They have a freaking lot of nerve don't they?

[+Renegade Knight]

The thread was closed before I got a chance to ask...

 

It was mentioned that the park considers anyone trespassing who is more than 25' off a trail. I have never heard of this in any park I have been in in 3 states (PA, OH, NY). Is this true? How can you be trespassing in a state park if you are not on marked trails? Sounds like a rather silly policy if true. I could see them restricting access to specific areas, but everything not on a trail?

 

Or is this just a geocaching policy, and only geocaches are trespassing (or geocachers if hunting for them) if beyond this 25'?

 

Or did I read this wrong?

 

Sbell111 summed it up.

Still if it's a public park and they drew a line 25' off the trail and made that land worthless. You could sell it to clear cut loggers and strip miners for all the good it does the people who it's being preserved for. I mean being preserved from.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Nice statement of the history of the park system. However, I don't consider it to be a public park when, if you read the pages from the earlier link, you need a permit or license to do just about ANYTHING in that park system. A public park doesn't make you get a piece of paper to do just about anything on it.

 

A park implies that you can enjoy yourself and relax doing recreational activities or just laying in the grass watching the clouds. If everthing is prohibited, it's not really a park. It's a preserve and even preserves have to allow some activities to justify their existence. No public use = no public purpose. At least insofar a parks. Area 42, and Military Bases are different.

[+Rockin Roddy]

It's not always about our rights RK, sometimes protection is given to other forms of life...plants and animals namely. Sometimes we need to be responsible to those that were there first.

 

Why don't they want spur trails? Possibly plant life or errosion prevention. Why not allow someone outside the bounderies of the trails? Maybe there's an endangered species living in the area adjacent to the trails.

[Blue_Stone]

And sadly what they usually don't understand is that the closer to the trail you require the cache to be placed, the more likely that a social trail will form.

 

Well said, smart guy!...LOL

[Blue_Stone]

A public park doesn't make you get a piece of paper to do just about anything on it.

 

Hmmm...Definately NOT the case here in NY. PUBLIC state parks require you to submit a permit to place a geocache, and even to drink alcohol within their boundaries. Also, DEC lands (State Forests and such), sometimes require permits for camping among other activities.

 

Also, NY state hunting licenses are required when hunting any public, as well as private land in NY.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Blue_stone

[+Team Cotati]

...Nice statement of the history of the park system. However, I don't consider it to be a public park when, if you read the pages from the earlier link, you need a permit or license to do just about ANYTHING in that park system. A public park doesn't make you get a piece of paper to do just about anything on it.

 

A park implies that you can enjoy yourself and relax doing recreational activities or just laying in the grass watching the clouds. If everthing is prohibited, it's not really a park. It's a preserve and even preserves have to allow some activities to justify their existence. No public use = no public purpose. At least insofar a parks. Area 42, and Military Bases are different.

 

Everything........................got it, marked it down, tee shirt on order. "allow some activities" I think if you think on that for a moment or two, there is an implied "some things are not allowed" hidden in there. Area 42?..................have mercy. This is really becoming rather humorous.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+FireRef]

...Nice statement of the history of the park system. However, I don't consider it to be a public park when, if you read the pages from the earlier link, you need a permit or license to do just about ANYTHING in that park system. A public park doesn't make you get a piece of paper to do just about anything on it.

 

A park implies that you can enjoy yourself and relax doing recreational activities or just laying in the grass watching the clouds. If everthing is prohibited, it's not really a park. It's a preserve and even preserves have to allow some activities to justify their existence. No public use = no public purpose. At least insofar a parks. Area 42, and Military Bases are different.

 

Everything........................got it, marked it down, tee shirt on order. "allow some activities" I think if you think on that for a moment or two, there is an implied "some things are not allowed" hidden in there. Area 42?..................have mercy. This is really becoming rather humorous.

 

I think the point is that what is the point of having a public park if you can't do anything in it. Obviously, destroying the park (sawing down trees, digging ditches, building buildings, etc) is a bad thing, but making people pay to go there, or making people pay (or even not pay) to get pieces of paper saying they can do something, seems to be against the concept of "public" park.

[+J-Way]

Lots of parks have restrictions about off-trail hiking. This typically applies to wilderness areas and is mainly to prevent excess impact on the local flora and for erosion prevention. It also serves to save the park money because they don't have to have search and rescue people on staff to go find your lost self at 2:00AM after you wandered off trail and your GPSr batteries died.

 

Even some National Parks require permits for off-trail hiking.

[+Team Cotati]

...Nice statement of the history of the park system. However, I don't consider it to be a public park when, if you read the pages from the earlier link, you need a permit or license to do just about ANYTHING in that park system. A public park doesn't make you get a piece of paper to do just about anything on it.

 

A park implies that you can enjoy yourself and relax doing recreational activities or just laying in the grass watching the clouds. If everthing is prohibited, it's not really a park. It's a preserve and even preserves have to allow some activities to justify their existence. No public use = no public purpose. At least insofar a parks. Area 42, and Military Bases are different.

 

Everything........................got it, marked it down, tee shirt on order. "allow some activities" I think if you think on that for a moment or two, there is an implied "some things are not allowed" hidden in there. Area 42?..................have mercy. This is really becoming rather humorous.

 

 

I think the point is that what is the point of having a public park if you can't do anything in it. Obviously, destroying the park (sawing down trees, digging ditches, building buildings, etc) is a bad thing, but making people pay to go there, or making people pay (or even not pay) to get pieces of paper saying they can do something, seems to be against the concept of "public" park.

 

Only because it seems to be badly needed:

 

A public park that allows no usage of any type at any time by any body is totally useless to all mankind and is in fact a public park in name only. The only exception to this might be that because of over use and abuse over time, a public park might have to be temporarily made off limits in order to allow it to recover to a usable state.

 

I'll not be spending a single micro-second searching for one of those I can tell you. I'll wait for your reports.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+Confucius' Cat]

What difference does it make anyway?

A previous thread went on for multiple pages with the general consensus seeming to be "I'll do whatever i want." I thought trespassing was official geocaching policy now.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I hope not CC...but you are right, I was also left with the feeling some would rather find the cache than respect the rules, laws, guidelines etc

on trespassing...

[+Team Cotati]

I hope not CC...but you are right, I was also left with the feeling some would rather find the cache than respect the rules, laws, guidelines etc

on trespassing...

 

On anything with which they personaly disagree would be more like it.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+FireRef]

 

On anything with which they personaly disagree would be more like it.

 

Well, sometimes this world would be a much better place if more people took a stand on things which they personally disagreed with, rather than just accepting things "because I said so". I didn't accept that well as a child, I don't accept it as an adult, and I don't use it with any children or people when I am asked a reason for something.

 

If you can't quickly and easily explain your reason for something to the satisfaction of a reasonably intelligent person, something is probably wrong with the decision.

Edited August 22, 2007 by FireRef

[+ShadowAce]

The thread was closed before I got a chance to ask...

 

It was mentioned that the park considers anyone trespassing who is more than 25' off a trail. I have never heard of this in any park I have been in in 3 states (PA, OH, NY). Is this true? How can you be trespassing in a state park if you are not on marked trails? Sounds like a rather silly policy if true. I could see them restricting access to specific areas, but everything not on a trail?

 

Or is this just a geocaching policy, and only geocaches are trespassing (or geocachers if hunting for them) if beyond this 25'?

 

Or did I read this wrong?

 

In AZ we have a few parks that have a 'Remain on designated Trails' rule. Until you are .5 miles from the trail head and then you can go where you desire.

 

When I asked the ranger what this was about they explained that many people who want to wander around do so just inside the park and they cause a lot of damage to the area. (Arizona has some very fragile plant life) So you are required to stay on the trails. People who plan outdoor adventures and are really going to consider impact on the area are the ones more likely to venture further into the mountains and as such they have less worry about you. They belive by making you stay on trail for the first half mile it will create less spider/false trails and keep the area looking nice for those who just come for a short hour or two in the mountain area.

 

I have no problems or complaints as it brings us further into an area. So yes, some parks do have a 'Do not leave the trail' rule and some only apply the rule to certain parts of the park.

[+Renegade Knight]

....

In AZ we have a few parks that have a 'Remain on designated Trails' rule. Until you are .5 miles from the trail head and then you can go where you desire.

 

When I asked the ranger what this was about they explained that many people who want to wander around do so just inside the park and they cause a lot of damage to the area. (Arizona has some very fragile plant life) So you are required to stay on the trails. People who plan outdoor adventures and are really going to consider impact on the area are the ones more likely to venture further into the mountains and as such they have less worry about you. They belive by making you stay on trail for the first half mile it will create less spider/false trails and keep the area looking nice for those who just come for a short hour or two in the mountain area.

 

I have no problems or complaints as it brings us further into an area. So yes, some parks do have a 'Do not leave the trail' rule and some only apply the rule to certain parts of the park.

 

That's using their brains to solve the problem but allow the most freedom. It's a good thing.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Maybe there's an endangered species living in the area adjacent to the trails.

 

My agencies solution to sensative areas and endangerd species is to not build roads and trails in those spots. We go somewhere else. Then we don't advertise where we found the sensative spots and endangered species. The end result is that the people are on the roads and trails, and the off trail area doesn't need to be closed becaues it's "just more land" that people can explore but normally don't because they are so busy clogging up the parks that have stay on the trail rules.

 

Yes that's TIC but it's also very much reality.

[+Team Spaced Out]

...... Even some National Parks require permits for off-trail hiking. .....

 

Are there any National Parks that don't require permits for off-trail hiking? A vast majority of parks like Yosimte are off limits to the average person without special permits. Unfortunately there has been the few that has ruined it for the many. In the past some people have gone into these parks and done considerable damage and trashed places, so they have made it harder for eveyone to enjoy some of the most breathtaking and awe inspiring areas of our country.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If you can't quickly and easily explain your reason for something to the satisfaction of a reasonably intelligent person, something is probably wrong with the decision.

I do that all the time. Where I bump into problems is when they also have a screw loose. Then reasonable and intelligence really dont come into play.

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

Well, sometimes this world would be a much better place if more people took a stand on things which they personally disagreed with, rather than just accepting things "because I said so". I didn't accept that well as a child, I don't accept it as an adult, and I don't use it with any children or people when I am asked a reason for something.

 

I agree, but there is a proper time, place, and procedure for "taking a stand" which if followed generally has a better chance of successfully getting the problematic rules changed for everyone, rather than selfishly benefiting the "protester" who chooses to blatantly break the rules for his/her own aggrandizement and/or enjoyment and "devil may care" about those who come after him/her.

 

By blatantly disobeying the rules, at least in the short term, one tends to make the situation WORSE for others, not better because the natural first reaction of TPTB is to tighten rules that are regularly broken, not loosen them.

 

Granted if enough people "take a stand" by breaking rules, eventually you wear down "the system" and rules get relaxed. But at least in the U.S. if the same energy was put into letter writing and calls to representatives as is put into protests, i believe in most cases the results would be a lot faster and with a lot less losses for the 'martyrs" of the protests.

[+FireRef]

 

Well, sometimes this world would be a much better place if more people took a stand on things which they personally disagreed with, rather than just accepting things "because I said so". I didn't accept that well as a child, I don't accept it as an adult, and I don't use it with any children or people when I am asked a reason for something.

 

I agree, but there is a proper time, place, and procedure for "taking a stand" which if followed generally has a better chance of successfully getting the problematic rules changed for everyone, rather than selfishly benefiting the "protester" who chooses to blatantly break the rules for his/her own aggrandizement and/or enjoyment and "devil may care" about those who come after him/her.

 

By blatantly disobeying the rules, at least in the short term, one tends to make the situation WORSE for others, not better because the natural first reaction of TPTB is to tighten rules that are regularly broken, not loosen them.

 

Granted if enough people "take a stand" by breaking rules, eventually you wear down "the system" and rules get relaxed. But at least in the U.S. if the same energy was put into letter writing and calls to representatives as is put into protests, i believe in most cases the results would be a lot faster and with a lot less losses for the 'martyrs" of the protests.

 

I wasn't advocating simply breaking the rules. I was advocating challenging them. Otherwise, I agree.

[+Team Cotati]

 

Well, sometimes this world would be a much better place if more people took a stand on things which they personally disagreed with, rather than just accepting things "because I said so". I didn't accept that well as a child, I don't accept it as an adult, and I don't use it with any children or people when I am asked a reason for something.

 

I agree, but there is a proper time, place, and procedure for "taking a stand" which if followed generally has a better chance of successfully getting the problematic rules changed for everyone, rather than selfishly benefiting the "protester" who chooses to blatantly break the rules for his/her own aggrandizement and/or enjoyment and "devil may care" about those who come after him/her.

 

By blatantly disobeying the rules, at least in the short term, one tends to make the situation WORSE for others, not better because the natural first reaction of TPTB is to tighten rules that are regularly broken, not loosen them.

 

Granted if enough people "take a stand" by breaking rules, eventually you wear down "the system" and rules get relaxed. But at least in the U.S. if the same energy was put into letter writing and calls to representatives as is put into protests, i believe in most cases the results would be a lot faster and with a lot less losses for the 'martyrs" of the protests.

 

I wasn't advocating simply breaking the rules. I was advocating challenging them. Otherwise, I agree.

 

And what challenges do you plan to register? When? Where? In what form?

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

Well, sometimes this world would be a much better place if more people took a stand on things which they personally disagreed with, rather than just accepting things "because I said so". I didn't accept that well as a child, I don't accept it as an adult, and I don't use it with any children or people when I am asked a reason for something.

 

I agree, but there is a proper time, place, and procedure for "taking a stand" which if followed generally has a better chance of successfully getting the problematic rules changed for everyone, rather than selfishly benefiting the "protester" who chooses to blatantly break the rules for his/her own aggrandizement and/or enjoyment and "devil may care" about those who come after him/her.

 

By blatantly disobeying the rules, at least in the short term, one tends to make the situation WORSE for others, not better because the natural first reaction of TPTB is to tighten rules that are regularly broken, not loosen them.

 

Granted if enough people "take a stand" by breaking rules, eventually you wear down "the system" and rules get relaxed. But at least in the U.S. if the same energy was put into letter writing and calls to representatives as is put into protests, i believe in most cases the results would be a lot faster and with a lot less losses for the 'martyrs" of the protests.

 

You gotta love the Cat!! Great point CC!! I wish I could point out the obvious so beautifully, guess that's why I'm always so misunderstood!! You should have posted this to the trespass topic, I think it is right on for that too!!

 

I have to ask also FR...how were you planning to protest? You advocate ignoring the pilots and flight attendants of aircraft which tell you not to use your GPS unit...which is really just breaking the rules and would also get you several hours of great conversation with people in suits and uniforms at the very least. How would you handle this situation?

[+sbell111]

 

Well, sometimes this world would be a much better place if more people took a stand on things which they personally disagreed with, rather than just accepting things "because I said so". I didn't accept that well as a child, I don't accept it as an adult, and I don't use it with any children or people when I am asked a reason for something.

 

I agree, but there is a proper time, place, and procedure for "taking a stand" which if followed generally has a better chance of successfully getting the problematic rules changed for everyone, rather than selfishly benefiting the "protester" who chooses to blatantly break the rules for his/her own aggrandizement and/or enjoyment and "devil may care" about those who come after him/her.

 

By blatantly disobeying the rules, at least in the short term, one tends to make the situation WORSE for others, not better because the natural first reaction of TPTB is to tighten rules that are regularly broken, not loosen them.

 

Granted if enough people "take a stand" by breaking rules, eventually you wear down "the system" and rules get relaxed. But at least in the U.S. if the same energy was put into letter writing and calls to representatives as is put into protests, i believe in most cases the results would be a lot faster and with a lot less losses for the 'martyrs" of the protests.

 

I wasn't advocating simply breaking the rules. I was advocating challenging them. Otherwise, I agree.

 

And what challenges do you plan to register? When? Where? In what form?

Why is it not OK for one of us to rant about the issue right here?

[+Rockin Roddy]

Truly, you gotta love those that would just ignore or purposely violate laws, rules guidelines etc, just because they disagree with them. Some feel so very wronged that they feel the ONLY recourse would be to break those restrictions? What ever happened to having a backbone and WORKING with those who make the restriction to get change?

 

And then you get an answer from the REALLY rebellious that says hey...you want to enforce the rules, I'll make your cache disappear. WOW! If I can't break the rules as I please, I'm going to be an @rse and ruin it for others as well?? Gotta love that!

 

I realize some of these rules are so petty that they are silly, but even then, you must do the right thing.

 

NOTE: This wasn't aimed at you FR...just venting a bit here...and I would bet those this IS aimed at will know (if they don't ignore it).

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

Well, sometimes this world would be a much better place if more people took a stand on things which they personally disagreed with, rather than just accepting things "because I said so". I didn't accept that well as a child, I don't accept it as an adult, and I don't use it with any children or people when I am asked a reason for something.

 

I agree, but there is a proper time, place, and procedure for "taking a stand" which if followed generally has a better chance of successfully getting the problematic rules changed for everyone, rather than selfishly benefiting the "protester" who chooses to blatantly break the rules for his/her own aggrandizement and/or enjoyment and "devil may care" about those who come after him/her.

 

By blatantly disobeying the rules, at least in the short term, one tends to make the situation WORSE for others, not better because the natural first reaction of TPTB is to tighten rules that are regularly broken, not loosen them.

 

Granted if enough people "take a stand" by breaking rules, eventually you wear down "the system" and rules get relaxed. But at least in the U.S. if the same energy was put into letter writing and calls to representatives as is put into protests, i believe in most cases the results would be a lot faster and with a lot less losses for the 'martyrs" of the protests.

 

I wasn't advocating simply breaking the rules. I was advocating challenging them. Otherwise, I agree.

 

And what challenges do you plan to register? When? Where? In what form?

Why is it not OK for one of us to rant about the issue right here?

 

Will ranting here help to better the situation? Will anyone here who sees this be in a position to help out? True, you get it off your chest, then what?

[+sbell111]

Truly, you gotta love those that would just ignore or purposely violate laws, rules guidelines etc, just because they disagree with them. Some feel so very wronged that they feel the ONLY recourse would be to break those restrictions? What ever happened to having a backbone and WORKING with those who make the restriction to get change?

 

And then you get an answer from the REALLY rebellious that says hey...you want to enforce the rules, I'll make your cache disappear. WOW! If I can't break the rules as I please, I'm going to be an @rse and ruin it for others as well?? Gotta love that!

 

I realize some of these rules are so petty that they are silly, but even then, you must do the right thing.

 

NOTE: This wasn't aimed at you FR...just venting a bit here...and I would bet those this IS aimed at will know (if they don't ignore it).

I'll admit that I merely browsed most of the angst in this thread, but did anyone suggest that they were going to intentionally break the rules or steal other people's caches?

[+Rockin Roddy]

I'm guessing you know where that comment comes from Sbell, but if you can't remember, try the comments made during my Trespass topic as this goes to that (but fits sooo very well here that I referenced it). Oh, and I was also referencing the GPS on airlines topic as well.

 

Hope I didn't lose anyone...sorry!

[+tozainamboku]

I think some people are being a little too hard on FireRef. Civil disobedience has long be an accepted outlet to voice disagreement with laws and policies that are seen as unreasonable or unjust. At one point this was a discussion as to whether policies of the 3 Rivers Park District regarding geocaching make sense. Several people have given good reasons for these rules or at least why the 3 Rivers Park districts might think there is a good reason to have the rule. It has been suggested that best way to get the rules changes is to work with the 3 Rivers Park district to educate them on the true impacts that geocaching might have on the environment. Unlike some of the examples of civil disobedience (ending segregation laws, opposing wars), a park district rules limiting how many geocaches you can have in a park or how far off a trail it can be is not such a big deal.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Will ranting here help to better the situation? Will anyone here who sees this be in a position to help out? True, you get it off your chest, then what?

 

The odds may be low but there is a chance that someone who does have the power is paying attention and while it may not help that particular park, they may have sway at another park.

[+sbell111]

...Will ranting here help to better the situation? Will anyone here who sees this be in a position to help out? True, you get it off your chest, then what?

Given the ranting you did in your trespassing thread, I find this post just a tad ironic. Edited August 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

...Will ranting here help to better the situation? Will anyone here who sees this be in a position to help out? True, you get it off your chest, then what?

Given the ranting you did in your trespassing thread, I find this post just a tad ironic.

 

Really? Who was I ranting at? The ones that I was targeting!!

 

You see, those that I ranted toward were the ones saying they'd break the law (or rule etc...). Seems about right to me.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+Confucius' Cat]

Unlike some of the examples of civil disobedience (ending segregation laws, opposing wars), a park district rules limiting how many geocaches you can have in a park or how far off a trail it can be is not such a big deal.

In the overall scheme of things, true.

 

This is why I disagree with the civil disobedience method for correcting this problem.

 

Is it worth going to jail for? That is generally what happens to civil disobedients. Even a fine is a ridiculous sacrifice to protest caching rules.

 

This forum could very well be a valid medium for change.

 

It seems to me that forum discussions have led to a lot of changes in GC.com.

 

Granted this particular issue is outside GC's purview but you never know who could be reading this. It just might be read by a person who will agree that the rule needs to be changed and that person might have the ability to get it done.

 

The party that made the rule does not need to be the one to read this, only someone who can effectively persuade the party in charge. I would venture that there is a really good chance that that party is reading the forums. That person would be a concerned cacher in the area who is not afraid to ask for favours.

[Abra Cadaver]

WOW....seems like we should be involved in this as well, seeing as how it pretty much started about us. This is K!11shot from Abra Cadaver. The 3 Rivers topic caught my eye, and on I read...and it seems like we're still taking heat for wrecking your game, and wrecking your parks, and I'm not really sure where to go with this. At one point it almost sounded like someone was going to accuse us of being thieves, just because we didn't get our way. We pulled a BUNCH of our caches for a few reasons. Number 1 being spite I guess you could call it. But that was heat of the moment, and has passed now. Second reason... well with all the open space now, we expected to see some new ones placed... Especially wanted to see if the "cheated" party in question would place one. Not one new listing in those parks yet... So I'm thinking that we may go put those runs back together again, and we'll leave them just shy of the cap limit.If thats allright with everyone else... Now as far as the trail guidelines go, I'm curious,and hopefully Surfer Joe will respond to this as well... If there is a huge dead geobeacon like a fallen tree that stretches for 200 feet, and pretty much everything else is deadfall around it, is it really out of line to go off the trail for 150 feet along that same beacon? I mean, I understand the trample effect, and the need to avoid that, but what about the scenario I just Described? Would taking pictures of where you are AT and where you are going TO, maybe help stretch that 25 foot limit out a bit in some areas? Lookin' for some feedback here...