Don't ask Don't Tell = bad idea!

[+Miragee]

I hope I am wrong but I had a bunch of red flags go up when I saw this post on another thread. I don't know how to do the right copy and paste stuff to get this to show up correctly so I have tried coloring things so you can see the flow. I question why this information has not been shared previously in this thread.

 

<snip>

 

(2)Well, the law on littering is probably most appropriate. Even geocaching.com’s own written policy supposedly claims that cachers need to get permission from landowners before placing a cache. As you say, the behind the scenes “little secret” is that many cachers place geocaches wherever they want and let the landowner deal with it later, or not at all. Well, here in Anza-Borrego we are dealing with it. The magnitude calls for a clean-up. The notice went out a month ago, and geocachers have been issued a notice to retrieve there boxes from park lands.

 

<snip>

NOTICE!!!! What notice? Prior to December 21, the Rangers and Volunteers had been removing caches without posting Notes on the cache pages. Then, four days before Christmas, notification is given that caches were no longer allowed in ABDSP, however no time was given for cache owners to retrieve their property.

 

When one cache, placed in honor of the cache owner's young daughter, was stolen and thrown away by either a Ranger or Volunteer, a Note was posted on that cache page saying "Just taking out the trash."

 

Why couldn't Jorgensen have given a 30-day notice for cache owners to have time to retrieve their own property? Why the sudden decision to do this four days before Christmas? Why were they removing cache containers for several months before this announcement was even made? Why do they continue to remove cache containers without posting Notes on the cache pages. Cachers are still looking for those caches because they think they are still there. If they are so concerned about impact, why not let people know there is no container there to look for anymore . . . ?

 

For the past several years, there have been Guidelines for placing caches in ABDSP and our local Reviewer made sure those were followed before a cache could be listed on GC.com. Other caches had been in place, in non-sensitive areas, for over six years. Some of these caches have had fewer than six visits per year for the past few years. As I have asked before, how could those few people cause any environmental damage?

Edited January 27, 2008 by Miragee

[+TrailGators]

Whoa...

 

Have you shared this information with the folks involved in the situation at Anza-Borrego? I haven't seen any of this shared in the thread you mentioned. And I went to double check just to make sure my memory wasn't failing me. I hope I am wrong, but I have all sorts of red flags going up right now.

I just received the info today. That is only half of Mr. Jorgenson's replies.

Isn't it a bit odd to you that after over six years of caching in ABDSP, we suddenly don't have permission? The ABDSP rangers sent their guidelines to our reviewers, which did not mention submitting anything to them for approval. Our reviewers were asked to make sure our caches followed their guidelines. We didn't write these requirements, they did.

 

What was the purpose of you contacting Jorgensen? Are you trying to help us?

Edited January 27, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Kit Fox]

Whoa...

 

Have you shared this information with the folks involved in the situation at Anza-Borrego? I haven't seen any of this shared in the thread you mentioned. And I went to double check just to make sure my memory wasn't failing me. I hope I am wrong, but I have all sorts of red flags going up right now.

I just received the info today. That is only half of Mr. Jorgenson's replies.

Isn't it a bit odd to you that after over six years of caching in ABDSP, we suddenly don't have permission? The ABDSP rangers sent their guidelines to our reviewers, which did not mention submitting anything to them for approval. Our reviewers were asked to make sure our caches followed their guidelines. We didn't write these requirements, they did.

 

What was the purpose of you contacting Jorgensen? Are you trying to help us?

 

I didn't contact Jorgenson, someone else did, and they emailed me privately with the information. The geocacher who contacted him asked to remain confidential. I have no desire to speak with him, because I think he is playing "both sides of the fence." I personally think he has an anti agenda, and that he lied to the person who contacted him.

 

Send me a PM TG!

[+TrailGators]

Whoa...

 

Have you shared this information with the folks involved in the situation at Anza-Borrego? I haven't seen any of this shared in the thread you mentioned. And I went to double check just to make sure my memory wasn't failing me. I hope I am wrong, but I have all sorts of red flags going up right now.

I just received the info today. That is only half of Mr. Jorgenson's replies.

Isn't it a bit odd to you that after over six years of caching in ABDSP, we suddenly don't have permission? The ABDSP rangers sent their guidelines to our reviewers, which did not mention submitting anything to them for approval. Our reviewers were asked to make sure our caches followed their guidelines. We didn't write these requirements, they did.

 

What was the purpose of you contacting Jorgensen? Are you trying to help us?

I didn't contact Jorgenson, someone else did, and they emailed me privately with the information. The geocacher who contacted him asked to remain confidential. I have no desire to speak with him, because I think he is playing "both sides of the fence." I personally think he has an anti agenda, and that he lied to the person who contacted him. Send me a PM TG!

Thanks Kit Fox. It's important to share this one section of the Unknown cacher's email to Jorgensen:

Personally, I can understand your side of it...it irritates me to no end that GC.com's stance is that a land owner / land manager has to approach them if there is a violation and that there is little, if any, verification up front that there is permission actually being obtained. One term constantly used on GC.com is "geocaching's dirty little secret", which essentially is the process of these rubber-stamped approvals of cache placements where the reviewers approve a cache purely on the word of the cacher that they have indeed received permission. A major issue is that geocachers may attempt to place caches in areas where they will not impact natural or cultural features, but what is their base of knowledge, experience, or research to inform them about sites containing archeological, paleontological, botanical, or wildlife sensitivities in a given area? This had lead to scores of caches being placed in areas of high sensitivity.

This person is really hurting geocaching by sharing his distorted "opinions." He comes across as very bitter. I'm sure that this guy knows that rangers talk to each other. People like this are probably the real reason that we get booted from these parks.

[+Kit Fox]

I got some new details that may have been the catalyst for the current ban. This came from an actual Ranger who works at ABDSP. He/she said they have witnessed firsthand geocachers intentionally ignoring signs / barriers then driving closer to geocaches within the park. When confronted by the rangers, the geocachers became belligerant, and ended getting citations from the rangers. According the the ranger other caches clearly showed signs of environmental damage created by geocachers, not the general public.

 

This is definately detrimental to geocaching when cachers get caught being stupid.

[+TrailGators]

I got some new details that may have been the catalyst for the current ban. This came from an actual Ranger who works at ABDSP. He/she said they have witnessed firsthand geocachers intentionally ignoring signs / barriers then driving closer to geocaches within the park. When confronted by the rangers, the geocachers became belligerant, and ended getting citations from the rangers. According the the ranger other caches clearly showed signs of environmental damage created by geocachers, not the general public.

 

This is definately detrimental to geocaching when cachers get caught being stupid.

Thanks for the info KF. At the very least, this is another straw on the camel's back.

[+lewisw]

shouldnt the cachers be punished?just ask the ranger who they were.

[+Miragee]

I got some new details that may have been the catalyst for the current ban. This came from an actual Ranger who works at ABDSP. He/she said they have witnessed firsthand geocachers intentionally ignoring signs / barriers then driving closer to geocaches within the park. When confronted by the rangers, the geocachers became belligerant, and ended getting citations from the rangers. According the the ranger other caches clearly showed signs of environmental damage created by geocachers, not the general public.

 

This is definately detrimental to geocaching when cachers get caught being stupid.

Since there have been so many other lies coming from the Superintendent and Notarager, I wonder about the truth of those statements.

 

And, even if that happened, there is no excuse for the unprofessional behavior by the Superintendent and Rangers who have been removing the caches for months without prior notice to Groundspeak about the change in Policy. There is no justification for them to remove the caches and throw them away. The worst thing is how they have removed the caches but then have not posted Notes on the cache pages.

 

How does that irresponsible action prevent cachers from continuing to search for caches listed as Active, but not in place anymore? People traveling through the area, or "snow birds" in the area for the winter, have no way of knowing what is happening out there.

 

If the Superintendent had behaved in a professional manner from the beginning, what they say now would not be met with such skepticism. The fact that the stories coming from them keep changing doesn't help their credibility either . . .

[+Kit Fox]

 

Since there have been so many other lies coming from the Superintendent and Notarager, I wonder about the truth of those statements.

 

And, even if that happened, there is no excuse for the unprofessional behavior by the Superintendent and Rangers who have been removing the caches for months without prior notice to Groundspeak about the change in Policy. There is no justification for them to remove the caches and throw them away. The worst thing is how they have removed the caches but then have not posted Notes on the cache pages.

 

How does that irresponsible action prevent cachers from continuing to search for caches listed as Active, but not in place anymore? People traveling through the area, or "snow birds" in the area for the winter, have no way of knowing what is happening out there.

 

If the Superintendent had behaved in a professional manner from the beginning, what they say now would not be met with such skepticism. The fact that the stories coming from them keep changing doesn't help their credibility either . . .

 

Several of the Rangers are monitoring this thread, I doubt insults will help. The recent info was not from the Supt. or from notaranger, it came from another ranger who works there but chose to remain "confidential."

[+TrailGators]

 

Since there have been so many other lies coming from the Superintendent and Notarager, I wonder about the truth of those statements.

 

And, even if that happened, there is no excuse for the unprofessional behavior by the Superintendent and Rangers who have been removing the caches for months without prior notice to Groundspeak about the change in Policy. There is no justification for them to remove the caches and throw them away. The worst thing is how they have removed the caches but then have not posted Notes on the cache pages.

 

How does that irresponsible action prevent cachers from continuing to search for caches listed as Active, but not in place anymore? People traveling through the area, or "snow birds" in the area for the winter, have no way of knowing what is happening out there.

 

If the Superintendent had behaved in a professional manner from the beginning, what they say now would not be met with such skepticism. The fact that the stories coming from them keep changing doesn't help their credibility either . . .

Several of the Rangers are monitoring this thread, I doubt insults will help. The recent info was not from the Supt. or from notaranger, it came from another ranger who works there but chose to remain "confidential."

The more I understand the entire picture, the more obvious that it is that we should have been having routine meetings with these guys. We would have been more than willing to remove problematic caches even if they met the guidelines that they gave to us. No cache is worth losing access to a great park. Also we could have shared info about the several CITOs, we have done in the park and maybe worked with them to have CITOs in other problem areas. Hopefully it's not too late to patch things up, but it doesn't sound good.

 

Also these citations typically pack a pretty good fine. So if the word got out about fines, I'm sure that would have helped get all the ducks back in line. There was one guy that was fined for going off trail in another park and word spread rapidly after that. One thing these guys forget is that it's a lot easier to get the word out to a group like Geocachers than it is to get the word out to random hikers/campers. Geocachers can even tell people to stay on the trail whenever they see an issue. It's too bad that a few bad apples can spoil the bunch. Geocachers are really a great group!

[+Miragee]

 

Since there have been so many other lies coming from the Superintendent and Notarager, I wonder about the truth of those statements.

 

And, even if that happened, there is no excuse for the unprofessional behavior by the Superintendent and Rangers who have been removing the caches for months without prior notice to Groundspeak about the change in Policy. There is no justification for them to remove the caches and throw them away. The worst thing is how they have removed the caches but then have not posted Notes on the cache pages.

 

How does that irresponsible action prevent cachers from continuing to search for caches listed as Active, but not in place anymore? People traveling through the area, or "snow birds" in the area for the winter, have no way of knowing what is happening out there.

 

If the Superintendent had behaved in a professional manner from the beginning, what they say now would not be met with such skepticism. The fact that the stories coming from them keep changing doesn't help their credibility either . . .

 

Several of the Rangers are monitoring this thread, I doubt insults will help. The recent info was not from the Supt. or from notaranger, it came from another ranger who works there but chose to remain "confidential."

Why did they not behave in a Professional manner? Why have the "facts" kept changing? Why haven't they posted Notes on the cache pages when they have removed the caches? Why did they post an insulting Note on one cache page for a cache dedicated to the cache owner's young daughter, saying "Just taking out the trash."?

 

If they are monitoring this thread, let them respond to those questions, or at the very least, go to the cache pages for the caches they have removed and post Notes so other cachers do not make fruitless trips to the area and waste time looking for a container that isn't there.

 

The bad behavior of a few cachers who were given citations does not explain why people who work for the State of California handled this situation in such an unprofessional way.

 

Caches are allowed, and even promoted, in other California State Parks. This should have been handled differently.

 

I think they may realize that now and that is why the "facts" and excuses keep changing . . .

[+briansnat]

And, even if that happened, there is no excuse for the unprofessional behavior by the Superintendent and Rangers who have been removing the caches for months without prior notice to Groundspeak about the change in Policy. There is no justification for them to remove the caches and throw them away. The worst thing is how they have removed the caches but then have not posted Notes on the cache pages.

 

How does that irresponsible action prevent cachers from continuing to search for caches listed as Active, but not in place anymore? People traveling through the area, or "snow birds" in the area for the winter, have no way of knowing what is happening out there.

 

 

It does make you wonder about their "concern for the environment" argument. If people are still looking for the caches, it doesn't matter to the environment whether the box is actually there or not. The affect is the same. Actually, probably worse because they are searching longer, over a wider area.

[+egami]

 

Since there have been so many other lies coming from the Superintendent and Notarager, I wonder about the truth of those statements.

 

And, even if that happened, there is no excuse for the unprofessional behavior by the Superintendent and Rangers who have been removing the caches for months without prior notice to Groundspeak about the change in Policy. There is no justification for them to remove the caches and throw them away. The worst thing is how they have removed the caches but then have not posted Notes on the cache pages.

 

How does that irresponsible action prevent cachers from continuing to search for caches listed as Active, but not in place anymore? People traveling through the area, or "snow birds" in the area for the winter, have no way of knowing what is happening out there.

 

If the Superintendent had behaved in a professional manner from the beginning, what they say now would not be met with such skepticism. The fact that the stories coming from them keep changing doesn't help their credibility either . . .

 

Several of the Rangers are monitoring this thread, I doubt insults will help. The recent info was not from the Supt. or from notaranger, it came from another ranger who works there but chose to remain "confidential."

Why did they not behave in a Professional manner? Why have the "facts" kept changing? Why haven't they posted Notes on the cache pages when they have removed the caches? Why did they post an insulting Note on one cache page for a cache dedicated to the cache owner's young daughter, saying "Just taking out the trash."?

 

If they are monitoring this thread, let them respond to those questions, or at the very least, go to the cache pages for the caches they have removed and post Notes so other cachers do not make fruitless trips to the area and waste time looking for a container that isn't there.

 

The bad behavior of a few cachers who were given citations does not explain why people who work for the State of California handled this situation in such an unprofessional way.

 

Caches are allowed, and even promoted, in other California State Parks. This should have been handled differently.

 

I think they may realize that now and that is why the "facts" and excuses keep changing . . .

 

Why are you so intent on continually blaming the park management? They don't owe geocaching anything. Their job is strictly managing the park and when something like geocaching becomes problematic it's not their job to make sure that the geocaching community is informed and up to date on the changes...

 

They've obviously figured out that they need to get these logs archived and GC.com apparently has agreed to work with them and do it, but to expect them to log on here and make notes on log entries? No, in fact, it's the cachers responsibility. It was noted before that the cache owners were each contacted. So, it would seem to me that it's THEIR responsibility to communicate such on their listings like they agree to do anytime they publish a cache and check the box.

 

You know...I am in full agreement that this is a tragic, sad loss that caching is going to be stifled here, but frankly...I don't get the "entitlement" attitude. You mention that they don't have the "justification...to remove the caches and throw them away". Well, yeah they do...they manage the park.

 

Sure, most of the caches weren't problematic, but a handful were and then for them to log on and find out that there were HUNDREDS of these I am sure was a bit overwhelming for them.

 

This is bound to happen again unless local cachers take more care to communicate and work with park personnel. This is a lesson that everyone in the caching community should learn from. You can blame the park all you want, but I think it's patently obvious that the caching community wasn't fulfilling its obligation by seeking permission and leaving the areas better than they were found, either.

Edited January 28, 2008 by egami

[+TrailGators]

And, even if that happened, there is no excuse for the unprofessional behavior by the Superintendent and Rangers who have been removing the caches for months without prior notice to Groundspeak about the change in Policy. There is no justification for them to remove the caches and throw them away. The worst thing is how they have removed the caches but then have not posted Notes on the cache pages.

 

How does that irresponsible action prevent cachers from continuing to search for caches listed as Active, but not in place anymore? People traveling through the area, or "snow birds" in the area for the winter, have no way of knowing what is happening out there.

 

It does make you wonder about their "concern for the environment" argument. If people are still looking for the caches, it doesn't matter to the environment whether the box is actually there or not. The affect is the same. Actually, probably worse because they are searching longer, over a wider area.

 

If they had simply given cachers 90 days to pick up their caches, then the cachers would have done all the work and would have gotten an opportunity to claim their personal property. Considering that the vast majority of cachers are really nice cooperative people this was a slap in the face to all of them. Because the rangers didn't do it this way, these cachers have no idea if their cache is still even out there or if it has been taken because the rangers quit logging notes when they take caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

...He/she said they have witnessed firsthand geocachers intentionally ignoring signs / barriers then driving closer to geocaches within the park. When confronted by the rangers, the geocachers became belligerant, and ended getting citations from the rangers. According the the ranger other caches clearly showed signs of environmental damage created by geocachers, not the general public.

 

This is definately detrimental to geocaching when cachers get caught being stupid.

 

Regardless of whether or not they were cachers, they were cited. This is a good thing.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Their job is strictly managing the park and when something like geocaching becomes problematic it's not their job to make sure that the geocaching community is informed and up to date on the changes......

 

You have to keep a couple of things in mind. First they do manage the parks, but they manage the parks on behalf of the public whom they serve. Geocachers are a part of the public. Second geocaching is a valid casual use of lands. By casual it's footprint is small enough to be a non issue for most areas and with a small amount of guidance can be steered away from other areas. Just as they do now with hikers, and other park users.

 

When they make a decision that has a public impact it is their job to do what they can to have a real reason for banning an activity, give notice, educate, and keep tabs on the feedback because they may need to reverse themselves later.

 

In other words, it is their job.

[+TrailGators]

You know...I am in full agreement that this is a tragic, sad loss that caching is going to be stifled here, but frankly...I don't get the "entitlement" attitude. You mention that they don't have the "justification...to remove the caches and throw them away". Well, yeah they do...they manage the park.

Maybe you would "get it" if you read the thread. It's been stated many times already. When you are given park guidelines by park officials to follow and you follow them, then it doesn't make sense why your caches that meet those guidelines are all being thrown in the trash. I think your word "entitlement" is way too strong. It is more like an expectation of fair treatment and common decency towards those citizens that were acting in good faith. I think RK hit the nail on the head with his last post.

[+Renegade Knight]

...You mention that they don't have the "justification...to remove the caches and throw them away". Well, yeah they do...they manage the park....

 

Here the issue is to follow the law they are subject to.

Caches are personal property. The same as camping equipment or a ice chest.

 

The "right" law to follow with caches is the abaondoned property law (that is if you choose to decide that you don't want caches and want to remove them using exising laws to justify the action). Abandoned property laws do have a prescribed process to follow. You can't just throw away personal property.

 

Thus when they treat caches like litter they are making an effort to skate around the work and effort required of the correct law by stretching beyond the breaking point litter laws.

 

It's possible that the wording of the specific litter law that the park has to follow does fit. In general most I've read don't apply to caches.

[+egami]

...Their job is strictly managing the park and when something like geocaching becomes problematic it's not their job to make sure that the geocaching community is informed and up to date on the changes......

 

You have to keep a couple of things in mind. First they do manage the parks, but they manage the parks on behalf of the public whom they serve. Geocachers are a part of the public. Second geocaching is a valid casual use of lands. By casual it's footprint is small enough to be a non issue for most areas and with a small amount of guidance can be steered away from other areas. Just as they do now with hikers, and other park users.

 

When they make a decision that has a public impact it is their job to do what they can to have a real reason for banning an activity, give notice, educate, and keep tabs on the feedback because they may need to reverse themselves later.

 

In other words, it is their job.

 

You haven't demonstrated where that is anything beyond opinion. There is no legal binding laws that state what you are implying. Especially in a case like this where clearly, at some level, cachers have abused their privileges and were breaking posted park rules.

[+egami]

You know...I am in full agreement that this is a tragic, sad loss that caching is going to be stifled here, but frankly...I don't get the "entitlement" attitude. You mention that they don't have the "justification...to remove the caches and throw them away". Well, yeah they do...they manage the park.

Maybe you would "get it" if you read the thread. It's been stated many times already. When you are given park guidelines by park officials to follow and you follow them, then it doesn't make sense why your caches that meet those guidelines are all being thrown in the trash. I think your word "entitlement" is way too strong. It is more like an expectation of fair treatment and common decency towards those citizens that were acting in good faith. I think RK hit the nail on the head with his last post.

 

Read the thread...I posted on page 1. I've read the entire thread. What's apparent to me is all rules weren't being followed at all times.

Edited January 28, 2008 by egami

[+egami]

...You mention that they don't have the "justification...to remove the caches and throw them away". Well, yeah they do...they manage the park....

 

Here the issue is to follow the law they are subject to.

Caches are personal property. The same as camping equipment or a ice chest.

 

The "right" law to follow with caches is the abaondoned property law (that is if you choose to decide that you don't want caches and want to remove them using exising laws to justify the action). Abandoned property laws do have a prescribed process to follow. You can't just throw away personal property.

 

Thus when they treat caches like litter they are making an effort to skate around the work and effort required of the correct law by stretching beyond the breaking point litter laws.

 

It's possible that the wording of the specific litter law that the park has to follow does fit. In general most I've read don't apply to caches.

 

You aren't a lawyer...you are just playing one on the Internet...

 

"Abandoned Property" could easily be thrown out on the basis of the maintenance agreement hosted here.

[+Renegade Knight]

...You haven't demonstrated where that is anything beyond opinion. There is no legal binding laws that state what you are implying. Especially in a case like this where clearly, at some level, cachers have abused their privileges and were breaking posted park rules.

 

You love saying that. Usually after you haven't made your own case beyond your own opinion. Apparently you don't understand the concept of public service. However from the home page of the California State Park system.

 

About Us

California State Parks

Our Mission

To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation.

 

California has it a bit backwards because without the Bold part the rest can't be done. If all the park system did was fence off public lands nobody would tolerate their existance.

 

So let me ask you. How is removing high quality outdoor recreation opportunities part of their mission? Would it not stand to reason that they need to answer for it given that it is part of their mission?

 

I'm not going to spend more time trying to convince you about some simple basics that any high schooler learned in civics.

[+Renegade Knight]

...You aren't a lawyer...you are just playing one on the Internet...

 

"Abandoned Property" could easily be thrown out on the basis of the maintenance agreement hosted here.

You have failed to prove your case beyond your own opinion. I kind of like that prase.

 

I'm not a lawer. I'm merely subject to the laws and trying to follow them. To do that you have to understand them. That means when this topic came up before folks dug up the laws and the laws read exactly as I have suggested. Abandoned propety laws are the ones that can be applied to caches. Litter doesn't as caches are personal property and not discarded. Laws tend to follow trends. They vary but normally not widely.

 

That said the maintance agreement on this site is not binding on the land manager who's the one who has to comply with the abandoned propety laws.

[+egami]

...You haven't demonstrated where that is anything beyond opinion. There is no legal binding laws that state what you are implying. Especially in a case like this where clearly, at some level, cachers have abused their privileges and were breaking posted park rules.

 

You love saying that. Usually after you haven't made your own case beyond your own opinion. Apparently you don't understand the concept of public service. However from the home page of the California State Park system.

 

Yeah, it's my opinion...my opinion based on actually working with local park managers at the state level. In Iowa they have no legal obligations whatsoever to allow caching. They can disallow hiking, biking, hunting, fishing or whatnot for pretty much any reason they want to make up. I doubt it's different there.

 

About Us

California State Parks

Our Mission

To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation.

 

California has it a bit backwards because without the Bold part the rest can't be done. If all the park system did was fence off public lands nobody would tolerate their existance.

 

So let me ask you. How is removing high quality outdoor recreation opportunities part of their mission? Would it not stand to reason that they need to answer for it given that it is part of their mission?

 

I'm not going to spend more time trying to convince you about some simple basics that any high schooler learned in civics.

 

They did answer for it...you didn't like the answer.

 

And you can run away from the argument, but the argument at a fundamental level remains the same....geocaching is a privilege not a right and when the privilege was abused then action had to be taken.

 

I didn't say I liked it. I didn't say I agree 100% with the way they handled it, but I am very confident in my assertion from a legal perspective.

 

Also, I am fairly confident from this thread that the geocaching community failed in IT'S self-proclaimed "mission". Yet, you all conveniently turn a blind eye to that side to justify your anger...

Edited January 28, 2008 by egami

[+egami]

...You aren't a lawyer...you are just playing one on the Internet...

 

"Abandoned Property" could easily be thrown out on the basis of the maintenance agreement hosted here.

You have failed to prove your case beyond your own opinion. I kind of like that prase.

 

I'm not a lawer. I'm merely subject to the laws and trying to follow them. To do that you have to understand them. That means when this topic came up before folks dug up the laws and the laws read exactly as I have suggested. Abandoned propety laws are the ones that can be applied to caches. Litter doesn't as caches are personal property and not discarded. Laws tend to follow trends. They vary but normally not widely.

 

That said the maintance agreement on this site is not binding on the land manager who's the one who has to comply with the abandoned propety laws.

 

Tell you what...go place a new geocache on that land. The Superintendent has promised to charge future caches with littering. And we'll see who wins that battle.

[Ferreter5]

When you are given park guidelines by park officials to follow and you follow them, then it doesn't make sense why your caches that meet those guidelines are all being thrown in the trash.

If this statement is true -- and at this point I don't see why it wouldn't be -- then I can understand why the geocachers there are feeling surprised. I'd guess the cache reviewer for that area would also be feeling a bit confused because they were working from what they thought were the guidelines for placing caches in that park.

 

I know if one of the park directors I have worked with to build a working relationship and friendship with started throwing away caches in an about-face with no explanation, I'd be caught by surprise. I'd also be on the phone to them to find out what happened and see what I could do to help.

 

My question from earlier in this thread is, has anyone had a meeting with the park supervisor about this? It seems to me whoever might have worked with the park folks on the previous guidelines would be a good candidate to re-establish that relationship.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Ferreter5

[+TrailGators]

My question from earlier in this thread is, has anyone had a meeting with the park supervisor about this? It seems to me whoever might have worked with the park folks on the previous guidelines would be a good candidate to re-establish that relationship.

Yes, our local reviewer Marco Ramius and Miss Jenn are already doing this.

[Ferreter5]

Yes, our local reviewer Marco Ramius and Miss Jenn are already doing this.

Super cool to hear!

[+egami]

When you are given park guidelines by park officials to follow and you follow them, then it doesn't make sense why your caches that meet those guidelines are all being thrown in the trash.

If this statement is true -- and at this point I don't see why it wouldn't be -- then I can understand why the geocachers there are feeling surprised. I'd guess the cache reviewer for that area would also be feeling a bit confused because they were working from what they thought were the guidelines for placing caches in that park.

 

The problem is that not all caches were meeting the guidelines.

[+TrailGators]

When you are given park guidelines by park officials to follow and you follow them, then it doesn't make sense why your caches that meet those guidelines are all being thrown in the trash.

If this statement is true -- and at this point I don't see why it wouldn't be -- then I can understand why the geocachers there are feeling surprised. I'd guess the cache reviewer for that area would also be feeling a bit confused because they were working from what they thought were the guidelines for placing caches in that park.

The problem is that not all caches were meeting the guidelines.

Please provide the GC numbers of the ones that weren't...

[+egami]

Please provide the GC numbers of the ones that weren't...

 

Maybe Superintendent Jorgensen would work with you on that...or also the ones where cachers were caught and fined for violating the rules in route to them.

[+TrailGators]

The problem is that not all caches were meeting the guidelines.

Please provide the GC numbers of the ones that weren't...

Maybe Superintendent Jorgensen would work with you on that...or also the ones where cachers were caught and fined for violating the rules in route to them.

It was your opinion. Back it up..... Edited January 28, 2008 by TrailGators

[+egami]

The problem is that not all caches were meeting the guidelines.

Please provide the GC numbers of the ones that weren't...

Maybe Superintendent Jorgensen would work with you on that...or also the ones where cachers were caught and fined for violating the rules in route to them.

It was your opinion. Back it up.....

 

Numerous geocaches have been placed within the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park without authorization. No consideration was given to resource sensitivity in the placement of any of these geocaches, and many have been discovered in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves.

[+Renegade Knight]

Please provide the GC numbers of the ones that weren't...

 

Maybe Superintendent Jorgensen would work with you on that...or also the ones where cachers were caught and fined for violating the rules in route to them.

 

Someone being a doofie on the way to a cache doesn't say anything at all about the cache itself. If you are caught speeding on the interstate on the way to a cache the cache itself is not the problem.

 

You have to understand the real world. Caches are not supposed to be placed on archaelogical sites. However nobody is going to give you a list of these sites so you can avoid them. Thus when you are out and about fishing, hiking, placing a cache, or other activities you will inadvertantly be in, on, or near a site. for most sites that's really not a problem. For the few that it is, the cache can be handled with discression and with the full coopearation of the cache owner.

[+Renegade Knight]

...No consideration was given to resource sensitivity in the placement of any of these geocaches, and many have been discovered in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves.[/b]

 

Try to get a list of these locations. Some are not protected by any secrecy laws. Some are. My money says you would be hard pressed just the same.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+TrailGators]

The problem is that not all caches were meeting the guidelines.

Please provide the GC numbers of the ones that weren't...

Maybe Superintendent Jorgensen would work with you on that...or also the ones where cachers were caught and fined for violating the rules in route to them.

It was your opinion. Back it up.....

Numerous geocaches have been placed within the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park without authorization. No consideration was given to resource sensitivity in the placement of any of these geocaches, and many have been discovered in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves.

 

So your opinion is based on complete unconditional belief of a statement that to date has been unsupported by actual examples with GC numbers? We actually cache out there and none of us can think of any "geocaches" that this statement could describe (I can't speak for navicaches or other types). We have been scratching our heads ever since we read it. We know of only one geocache that was found 300 feet from an archealogical site but the guideline they gave us requires 200 feet. I'm sure we would have followed 500 feet if that had been what they asked for but they asked for 200 feet. Edited January 28, 2008 by TrailGators

[nobby.nobbs]

I can't see that anything is going to be solved by trying to figure out who or why caused the situation or whether the authorities should or shouldn't have done some of the things that they have ( allegedly) done.

 

Draw a line under what's happened. Now let the negotiations carry on to a hopefully successful conclusion with no more mud slinging. What happened is in the past, live with it. We've all had caches removed by individuals either in positions of authority or not either with the blessings or not of the land owners, often just because that individual thought it should be. Doesn't do a dagnum thing by getting annoyed about it.

[+snowcrustracer]

Mark C. Jorgensen

Superintendent

Anza-Borrego Desert State Park

200 Palm Canyon Drive

Borrego Springs, CA 92004

 

Many lessons can be learned by this!

 

I wonder if this fellow is part of this group http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northame...s/art19619.html

[+egami]

The problem is that not all caches were meeting the guidelines.

Please provide the GC numbers of the ones that weren't...

Maybe Superintendent Jorgensen would work with you on that...or also the ones where cachers were caught and fined for violating the rules in route to them.

It was your opinion. Back it up.....

Numerous geocaches have been placed within the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park without authorization. No consideration was given to resource sensitivity in the placement of any of these geocaches, and many have been discovered in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves.

 

So your opinion is based on complete unconditional belief of a statement that to date has been unsupported by actual examples with GC numbers? We actually cache out there and none of us can think of any "geocaches" that this statement could describe (I can't speak for navicaches or other types). We have been scratching our heads ever since we read it. We know of only one geocache that was found 300 feet from an archealogical site but the guideline they gave us requires 200 feet. I'm sure we would have followed 500 feet if that had been what they asked for but they asked for 200 feet.

 

That and two personal e-mail conversations with rangers at the park.

 

So, yeah, I am taking the words of those people in official positions over a handful of GC.com skeptics.

[+egami]

I can't see that anything is going to be solved by trying to figure out who or why caused the situation or whether the authorities should or shouldn't have done some of the things that they have ( allegedly) done.

 

Draw a line under what's happened. Now let the negotiations carry on to a hopefully successful conclusion with no more mud slinging. What happened is in the past, live with it. We've all had caches removed by individuals either in positions of authority or not either with the blessings or not of the land owners, often just because that individual thought it should be. Doesn't do a dagnum thing by getting annoyed about it.

 

Be careful bring up that point...I did earlier and got flamed to high heaven. It's unethical to question the one-sided stance in this thread or to seek the other side of the story. We are to simply assume this is a gross infringement of rights and be mad about it and place blame on park management.

[+Rockin Roddy]

...No consideration was given to resource sensitivity in the placement of any of these geocaches, and many have been discovered in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves.[/b]

 

Try to get a list of these locations. Some are not protected by any secrecy laws. Some are. My money says you would be hard pressed just the same.

 

This may be true. BUT, if the cache placer were to have asked about an area before placing their cache, they might have been made aware! Maybe when the mud stops being slung, people can get down to how to make caching work in that and other parks!!

 

Here, I map out every cache for my local S.P. crew and work with them and beside them. I also have to get a permit every year for my caches (payed by MiGO), this gives them a contract that I must adhere to. I am in contact with them and always update them when things change. They know me by name and I know them as well, if they have a problem they know who to contact and will! I also host my annual event there with their help and approval...and they are more than welcome to come and joing the fun!!

 

Maybe it's time to make friends with your park managers!

[+Renegade Knight]

...No consideration was given to resource sensitivity in the placement of any of these geocaches, and many have been discovered in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves.[/b]

 

Try to get a list of these locations. Some are not protected by any secrecy laws. Some are. My money says you would be hard pressed just the same.

 

This may be true. BUT, if the cache placer were to have asked about an area before placing their cache, they might have been made aware! Maybe when the mud stops being slung, people can get down to how to make caching work in that and other parks!!

 

....

 

Maybe it's time to make friends with your park managers!

 

Since they worked with an existing policy there was no problem. Remember fishing is allowed in on and around all of those resources as is hiking etc. No special permission needed. With the existing policy there would be no reason to assume that you did need to ask for a list. However now that that's been made an issue (retroactive issue actually) maybe it's fair to ask about the list now.

[+Miragee]

Mark C. Jorgensen

Superintendent

Anza-Borrego Desert State Park

200 Palm Canyon Drive

Borrego Springs, CA 92004

 

Many lessons can be learned by this!

I wonder if this fellow is part of this group http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northame...s/art19619.html

I find it quite interesting that even The Nature Conservancy does not completely prohibit Geocaching, but they do prohibit motorized vehicles and mountain biking, two things allowed, and even promoted in ABDSP. From the Nature Conservancy web site:

Uses Considered on a Case-by-Case Basis

 

Geocaching – . . .

 

Uses Generally Prohibited

 

The following uses are generally inconsistent with The Nature Conservancy’s mission, goals, or policies and procedures, and are not allowed on Conservancy preserves.

 

Motorized Vehicles – All motorized vehicles are prohibited.<snip>

 

Mountain Biking – Mountain biking is prohibited. <snip>[/i]

Not only are motorized vehicles allowed in ABDSP, it is one of the first things stated on the web site where they mention having five-hundred miles of dirt roads, . . .

 

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

 

Although these statistics for the caches in ABDSP are not complete yet, look at the average number of visits per cache per year.

 

Placed  Caches  Avg Dif   Avg Ter  Visits/Year	   

2001	13		 2.27		3.42	   7
2002	10		 2.05		2.60	  10
2003	23		 1.93		2.36	  12
2004	56		 1.50		1.96	  15
2005	25		 1.58		2.40	  17
2006	45		 1.82		2.43	  17
2007	47		 1.81		2.64	  21

How could those few visitors to a cache cause a problem in a Park where 4WD vehicles are allowed? Why, after seven years, have Geocachers been singled out from enjoying the area in our non-destructive way, while 4WD vehicle groups are allowed to drive the roads testing the durability of the vehicles and the mettle of the drivers?

 

Trust me, the rock this Jeep was trying to get around was not untouched by this encounter.

 

 

 

As I have stated before, ABDSP is a Park, not a Preserve.

[+Renegade Knight]

...That and two personal e-mail conversations with rangers at the park.

 

So, yeah, I am taking the words of those people in official positions over a handful of GC.com skeptics.

 

Did they say that they owed the public no duty of care or was that your own interpretation of what they said?

[+Team Cotati]

Mark C. Jorgensen

Superintendent

Anza-Borrego Desert State Park

200 Palm Canyon Drive

Borrego Springs, CA 92004

 

Many lessons can be learned by this!

I wonder if this fellow is part of this group http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northame...s/art19619.html

I find it quite interesting that even The Nature Conservancy does not completely prohibit Geocaching, but they do prohibit motorized vehicles and mountain biking, two things allowed, and even promoted in ABDSP. From the Nature Conservancy web site:

Uses Considered on a Case-by-Case Basis

 

Geocaching – . . .

 

Uses Generally Prohibited

 

The following uses are generally inconsistent with The Nature Conservancy’s mission, goals, or policies and procedures, and are not allowed on Conservancy preserves.

 

Motorized Vehicles – All motorized vehicles are prohibited.<snip>

 

Mountain Biking – Mountain biking is prohibited. <snip>[/i]

Not only are motorized vehicles allowed in ABDSP, it is one of the first things stated on the web site where they mention having five-hundred miles of dirt roads, . . .

 

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

 

Although these statistics for the caches in ABDSP are not complete yet, look at the average number of visits per cache per year.

 

Placed  Caches  Avg Dif   Avg Ter  Visits/Year	   

2001	13		 2.27		3.42	   7
2002	10		 2.05		2.60	  10
2003	23		 1.93		2.36	  12
2004	56		 1.50		1.96	  15
2005	25		 1.58		2.40	  17
2006	45		 1.82		2.43	  17
2007	47		 1.81		2.64	  21

How could those few visitors to a cache cause a problem in a Park where 4WD vehicles are allowed? Why, after seven years, have Geocachers been singled out from enjoying the area in our non-destructive way, while 4WD vehicle groups are allowed to drive the roads testing the durability of the vehicles and the mettle of the drivers?

 

Trust me, the rock this Jeep was trying to get around was not untouched by this encounter.

 

 

 

As I have stated before, ABDSP is a Park, not a Preserve.

 

Off road 4x4 is not allowed in ABDSP.

[+Miragee]

 

Off road 4x4 is not allowed in ABDSP.

I know that. That Jeep was on one of the 500 miles of "dirt roads" in ABDSP.

[+Rockin Roddy]

...No consideration was given to resource sensitivity in the placement of any of these geocaches, and many have been discovered in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves.[/b]

 

Try to get a list of these locations. Some are not protected by any secrecy laws. Some are. My money says you would be hard pressed just the same.

 

This may be true. BUT, if the cache placer were to have asked about an area before placing their cache, they might have been made aware! Maybe when the mud stops being slung, people can get down to how to make caching work in that and other parks!!

 

....

 

Maybe it's time to make friends with your park managers!

 

Since they worked with an existing policy there was no problem. Remember fishing is allowed in on and around all of those resources as is hiking etc. No special permission needed. With the existing policy there would be no reason to assume that you did need to ask for a list. However now that that's been made an issue (retroactive issue actually) maybe it's fair to ask about the list now.

 

Maybe you don't understand...all my work goes above and beyond the POLICY we already have in place just like you...did. I work with my friends down to the S.P. and actually just shot off an email this morning, one two weeks ago as well. One before New Year, one before Christmas (both New Year and Christmas were to with all a merry and haapy season respectively)...my point being, they know me, they know they can count on me to correct any problem and they know I care about our parks!

 

Also. as has been pointed out, TPTB can ban any activity for any reason they deem worthy. Sitting back harping about your rights won't change that, but those watching might get a wrong impression!

[+Renegade Knight]

...all my work goes above and beyond the POLICY we already have in place just like you...did. I work with my friends down to the S.P. and actually just shot off an email this morning, one two weeks ago as well. One before New Year, one before Christmas (both New Year and Christmas were to with all a merry and haapy season respectively)...my point being, they know me, they know they can count on me to correct any problem and they know I care about our parks! ...

 

That kind of leg work back before regulation could have prevented regulations to begin with...if you were working with folks who were the kind to think that's it's important to regulate a casual activity. A lot of land managers are the type who don't see the need to regulate something so trivial. I'm blessed to work with some of the latter types.

 

I tend to post on the side of maximum freedom but that's only one faucet of a much larger picture. Picture if you will if geocachers had been a larger part of the volunteer crew for that park. In a couple of weeks I'll be presenting the Portneuf Greenway with their first check from the Friends of Caching Coin. That's going to be nice.

[+DavidMac]

 

Off road 4x4 is not allowed in ABDSP.

 

From my personal experience in that park, some people have a very loose definition of what constitutes a legal "road". Try telling that to the three guys who rode through the brush on dirt bikes as I searched for a cache that was practically right on the roadway . Heck, take a look at a sattelite photo of that cache site and ask yourself which of those two activities causes more damage.

[+Rockin Roddy]

...all my work goes above and beyond the POLICY we already have in place just like you...did. I work with my friends down to the S.P. and actually just shot off an email this morning, one two weeks ago as well. One before New Year, one before Christmas (both New Year and Christmas were to with all a merry and haapy season respectively)...my point being, they know me, they know they can count on me to correct any problem and they know I care about our parks! ...

 

That kind of leg work back before regulation could have prevented regulations to begin with...if you were working with folks who were the kind to think that's it's important to regulate a casual activity. A lot of land managers are the type who don't see the need to regulate something so trivial. I'm blessed to work with some of the latter types.

 

I tend to post on the side of maximum freedom but that's only one faucet of a much larger picture. Picture if you will if geocachers had been a larger part of the volunteer crew for that park. In a couple of weeks I'll be presenting the Portneuf Greenway with their first check from the Friends of Caching Coin. That's going to be nice.

 

Or the type that don't know much of geocaching save the bomb scares and memos from other park managers. The kind that are afraid of trouble, so instead of letting it happen, they ban it. The kind that sit and watch as some cachers get caught breaking the rules...and then getting ugly with the PTB because of their own ignorance (or wanton disregard). Those are the kinds that need to be informed and educated as to the good that caching has and that the bad is USUALLY very minor. Those are the kind who you need to keep in contact with so as to keep a friendly and agreeable relationship going. Those are the kind that need to have a person they trust to be their contact person. Since you can't really tell just by meeting a person once, or writing a person once or...it makes it tough to know which type you might be dealing with.