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

[+TrailGators]

...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?

So egami must have been the one that wrote this in an 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.

Holy cow! With friends like that geocachers don't need enemies....

 

By the way, I thought it was very reasonable to ask for specific GC numbers that violated the guidelines. This info has never been provided and this information is educational at the very least. There were somewhere between "numerous" and "hundreds" of caches in violation depending on which email from Jorgensen that you read.

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

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.

 

My guess is, it's the archeological and historical areas which are being damaged...but not by bikes, which really worry the PTB right now. Just a guess, I could be wrong!

[+Renegade Knight]

... Holy cow! With friends like that geocachers don't need enemies.... ...

 

Given his communications skills, his ablility to get crossway's with both sides of the issue without actually listning to anyone to understand their side, and his willingness to indite his fellow cachers I flat out would not trust them to talk on behalf of anyone.

 

If that email is actually his, it goes from my opinion based on posts to case closed. He misrepreseded every single side of the issue including the parks.

[+TrailGators]

... Holy cow! With friends like that geocachers don't need enemies.... ...

Given his communications skills, his ablility to get crossway's with both sides of the issue without actually listning to anyone to understand their side, and his willingness to indite his fellow cachers I flat out would not trust them to talk on behalf of anyone.

 

If that email is actually his, it goes from my opinion based on posts to case closed. He misrepresented every single side of the issue including the parks.

I agree. I'm not sure why he stuck his nose our local business and emailed Jorgensen in the first place. Edited January 29, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

"Loose Lips Sink Ships" applies to many other things in life, Geocaching included. It was wrong for someone in Iowa to contact the rangers down there about the issue for any reason, period. egami has a real knack for twisting what is said so he can dispute it.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Cpt.Blackbeard

[+TrailGators]

"Loose Lips Sink Ships" applies to many other things in life, Geocaching included. It was wrong for someone in Iowa to contact the rangers down there about the issue for any reason, period. egami has a real knack for twisting what is said so he can dispute it.

Especially loose lips that are spewing BS. He makes all of us look bad with those comments. I have nothing but good things to say about geocaching and geocachers. Sure we have some knuckleheads but the vast majority I've met are really good people. Geocaching has many success stories with many parks. Our local cachers formed an agreement with another local park to have all caches submitted and reviewed by the rangers after they were banned from that park. The rangers of that park have told me that they appreciate geocachers clearing overgrown trails in the park. If geocachers didn't do it they would have to. So maybe these guys will also see the positive side of geocaching at some point. There is a very strong positive side and we need to play those cards.

[+egami]

So egami must have been the one that wrote this in an email to Jorgensen:

 

You really are looking to blame me aren't you...

 

 

Jorgensen isn't a "ranger"...however, what I did find out after a little research is that I graduated from high school with one of the current rangers. I'd post their e-mail, but they've asked to remain anonymous, so its content and their name is going to remain as such. It's not just Jorgensen, however, that is claiming these things that was quoted in the Kit's OP or this "e-mail" that you've conveniently blamed me for without proof and you guys are going to any length to paint the rangers, and park manager, as liars without proof. I find the lack of integrity a pretty sad representation for the geocaching community as a whole.

 

Blame whoever you want...it's obvious you're going to blame anyone but the individuals who are actually creating problems in the park.

Edited January 29, 2008 by egami

[+Team Cotati]

"Loose Lips Sink Ships" applies to many other things in life, Geocaching included. It was wrong for someone in Iowa to contact the rangers down there about the issue for any reason, period. egami has a real knack for twisting what is said so he can dispute it.

Especially loose lips that are spewing BS. He makes all of us look bad with those comments. I have nothing but good things to say about geocaching and geocachers. Sure we have some knuckleheads but the vast majority I've met are really good people. Geocaching has many success stories with many parks. Our local cachers formed an agreement with another local park to have all caches submitted and reviewed by the rangers after they were banned from that park. The rangers of that park have told me that they appreciate geocachers clearing overgrown trails in the park. If geocachers didn't do it they would have to. So maybe these guys will also see the positive side of geocaching at some point. There is a very strong positive side and we need to play those cards.

 

Yeah, the vast majority that I have met also seem to be really good people too. There must be a whole bunch of really good people associated with this game. That is very nice.

[magellan315]

Since Egami has entered this thread I have gotten really tired of the way it has played out. I have been involved with one county agency and one state agency who wanted to ban Geocaching from their properties and watched what happened in South Carolina about two years ago. In these situations I’ve seen attempts to ban Geocaching using guidelines that are not evenly enforced and making claims about the damage that Geocaches and Geocachers have created with no documentation or invented it to support these claims.

 

Yes I remain very skeptical of the park staff’s claims of the extent of the damage. They have offered no direct evidence of their claims. Just a lot of vague statements about hundreds or numerous caches that have been placed in sensitive areas. In my experience once actual proof of their claims is brought forward the actual damage caused by Geocaching is nominal to non-existent. Geocaching is often held responsible for damage because there is a website and a cache, unlike mountain bikers, ATV users or any other groups that have far more traffic in a an area.

 

If Egami wants to help this situation the best thing he can offer is to stop communicating with the park staff and let the local reviewer and Miss Jenn find a way to resolve this locally. As a resident of Pennsylvania I knew Miss Jenn for several years, she is a former cache reviewer and is currently a Ground Speak lackey. In 2003 she negotiated with Pennsylvania state park and forest system a Geocaching policy, at a time when very few places knew about Geocaching or even had policies.

 

While he is protecting the anonymity of a park ranger and the contents of the e-mails there is no way he can make the same claim. A Geocacher from Iowa is not going to be familiar with the local issues in California, your e-mails may create more misleading information.

 

This park had policy in place for six years and benefited from CITO’s every six months, a sudden reversal with no warning or coordination with the Geocaching community coupled with vague claims of damage require a healthy dose of skepticism. We’ve all seen government employees over the years who have made decision based on political agendas and not real issues. This isn’t about the parks staff integrity, rather its about questioning a sudden policy change.

Edited January 29, 2008 by magellan315

[+egami]

Since Egami has entered this thread I have gotten really tired of the way it has played out.

 

I have been in this thread from page one.

 

Don't falsely accuse me of anything when you have no idea what my level of communication is...I have a personal high school, childhood friend that works in that park. I have every right to inquire their opinion on the situation.

 

There is no need for you, or TG, to make any assumption on what my impact as been when you clearly don't have a clue.

Edited January 29, 2008 by egami

[magellan315]

You have a personal, high school, childhood friend who from the sounds of your earlier posts you haven't heard from since high school, at least 10 years. They have provided you possible proof to damage created by Geocachers which you cannot share because you have to protect their anonymity. So we have to take your word for it. Your right we don't know the level of communication you have and you seem to be getting information others do not. So how do we know you that your e-mails are not being used as facts, since you have a dialouge going on.

 

Trail Gators live and cache in the area of this park and are more aware of the local issues surronding this matter than you are. Unless your contact is willing to be more open about the information they have provided you. Your communication with the park staff could be compounding the problem as they may see you as a Geocacher instead of a Geocaher from Iowa.

Edited January 29, 2008 by magellan315

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

This park had policy in place for six years and benefited from CITO’s every six months, a sudden reversal with no warning or coordination with the Geocaching community coupled with vague claims of damage require a healthy dose of skepticism. We’ve all seen government employees over the years who have made decision based on political agendas and not real issues. This isn’t about the parks staff integrity, rather its about questioning a sudden policy change.

Thank you for your comments and for understanding. I have found more than 100 caches in ABDSP and not one of those was in an area designated as sensitive, nor was there was anything to prevent other people from getting to that same location.

 

One cache I found located in this area of slickrock and tumbled boulders had been in place since 1/13/2001.

 

 

Anza Borrego Desert State Park encompasses more than 600,000 acres. That should be enough room to allow Geocaches . . . At the very least, the Park Management should have given specific examples of caches in sensitive areas and then given ample notice of their sudden change in policy for all caches in the Park. Then, they should have given the cache owners time to retrieve their property. There is no excusing the way they handled this situation.

[+Renegade Knight]

Since Egami has entered this thread I have gotten really tired of the way it has played out.

 

I have been in this thread from page one.

 

Don't falsely accuse me of anything when you have no idea what my level of communication is...I have a personal high school, childhood friend that works in that park. I have every right to inquire their opinion on the situation.

 

There is no need for you, or TG, to make any assumption on what my impact as been when you clearly don't have a clue.

Your nameless friend? If they are unwilling to share their name they are either worried about retaliation or they are not the right person to be talking to. They are only good as an information source and only within their limits and since they are nameless and working through you are not much help to the people working on this in CA.

[+egami]

They are only good as an information source and only within their limits and since they are nameless and working through you are not much help to the people working on this in CA.

 

Which is precisely what I said...it turns out I know someone that is a Ranger there and I trust their perception. As far as "working through you"...whatever that means, no one is working on anything I know someone who works there. They had a friend who had been monitoring this thread that had a question for me.

 

Quite frankly it's comical to what lengths you, TrailGators, Miragee and others will go to in order to defend all of your "opinions" on it. Some of you making blind accusations on the part of management and now other cachers. You have no more factually based information on caches causing problems then that which you are demanding from the ABDSP people.

 

Just like a few pages back when the three individuals flamed me to no end for simply being interested in hearing another perspective. I think the level of intensity is inversely proportional to the usefulness of the current state of this thread.

[+briansnat]

<snip>

 

This park had policy in place for six years and benefited from CITO’s every six months, a sudden reversal with no warning or coordination with the Geocaching community coupled with vague claims of damage require a healthy dose of skepticism. We’ve all seen government employees over the years who have made decision based on political agendas and not real issues. This isn’t about the parks staff integrity, rather its about questioning a sudden policy change.

Thank you for your comments and for understanding. I have found more than 100 caches in ABDSP and not one of those was in an area designated as sensitive, nor was there was anything to prevent other people from getting to that same location.

 

One cache I found located in this area of slickrock and tumbled boulders had been in place since 1/13/2001.

 

 

Anza Borrego Desert State Park encompasses more than 600,000 acres. That should be enough room to allow Geocaches . . . At the very least, the Park Management should have given specific examples of caches in sensitive areas and then given ample notice of their sudden change in policy for all caches in the Park. Then, they should have given the cache owners time to retrieve their property. There is no excusing the way they handled this situation.

 

No wonder!! Look at all the holes geocachers made in the rocks!

[magellan315]

 

Which is precisely what I said...it turns out I know someone that is a Ranger there and I trust their perception. As far as "working through you"...whatever that means, no one is working on anything I know someone who works there. They had a friend who had been monitoring this thread that had a question for me.

 

Quite frankly it's comical to what lengths you, TrailGators, Miragee and others will go to in order to defend all of your "opinions" on it. Some of you making blind accusations on the part of management and now other cachers. You have no more factually based information on caches causing problems then that which you are demanding from the ABDSP people.

 

Just like a few pages back when the three individuals flamed me to no end for simply being interested in hearing another perspective. I think the level of intensity is inversely proportional to the usefulness of the current state of this thread.

 

I for one would love to hear from another perspective on this situation, from the ABDSP staff. Not a Geocacher who no familiarity with the ABDSP. Your friend the ranger has given you information that you feel shows that Geocachers have been responsible for these vague claims of environmental damage. But because you cannot reveal it we can only take your word at it, just like we are supposed to take the word of the ABDSP. This about respecting the ABDSP and verifying their claims.

 

Now you tell us you answered a question for a friend of the ABDSP staff who is monitoring this thread. Given your belief that the ABDSP is right about this matter I concerned how you may have affected the negotiations that are occurring at the local level.

 

The intensity of this thread is proportional to the usefulness of this thread. Your telling us the ABDSP is right in their actions, but you will not provide the information you have. Anytime someone has questioned the ABDSP position you have stated that we are questioning the integrity of the ABDSP staff. The ABDSP has made blind accusations about numerous and/or hundreds of Geocaches that have been placed in sensitive areas that are damaging their surroundings. Without providing any information to investigate these claims. No one is questioning the integrity, we are questioning how they made this decision.

 

If the ABDSP is monitoring this thread then I invite them to provide the GC numbers of the hundreds of caches in violation and the nature of the violation. So Groundspeak and local cachers can verify this. Two years ago in South Carolina a state legislator attempted to ban Geocaching within South Carolina. When she brought her proof forward it turned out to that some claims had been misrepresented and others had been invented.

[+Renegade Knight]

They are only good as an information source and only within their limits and since they are nameless and working through you are not much help to the people working on this in CA.

 

Which is precisely what I said...it turns out I know someone that is a Ranger there and I trust their perception....

 

What perception? You haven't quoted them.

[+Renegade Knight]

...You have no more factually based information on caches causing problems then that which you are demanding from the ABDSP people....

 

Asking for real information is a problem? Hardly.

 

As for caches, allow me to present the credentials of most cachers. They are cachers, they find caches they place caches, they know the issues that can crop up, they know what happens with seekers and it's all based on real experience. Most cachers involved have far and away more experience with caches than most park rangers. You wan't to talk cache. We cachers are who you need. Cachers also tend to have a heck of a lot more experience with our public lands and all the nooks and crannies than most folks.

 

You have called more than a few facts "opinion". Maybe you shoud start asking questions so you have some hope of understanding what's going on.

 

Here is one for you ponder. "What is a cultural resource?" Here is a hint. NEPA defines them legally. If you are up to the challenge to actually learn, that's a start.

[+Renegade Knight]

...They had a friend who had been monitoring this thread that had a question for me....

 

What was question. What was the answer? You should have no problem providing this.

[+egami]

...They had a friend who had been monitoring this thread that had a question for me....

 

What was question. What was the answer? You should have no problem providing this.

 

It didn't really pertain directly to the discussion...it was more regarding whether there were "unlisted" geocaches similar to letterboxing. They thought letterboxes were automatically listed here also due to the hybrid type listing.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Quite frankly it's comical to what lengths you, TrailGators, Miragee and others will go to in order to defend all of your "opinions" on it....

 

One of my opinions is based on a BLM policy paper about caching. Do you know which one? Didn't think so.

Unfortunatly you lack the depth of experience to do more than thrash about like a fish out of water. That's fine, we can all learn. The trick is to be interested in learning.

 

Have you noticed that TrailGators and I don't always agree? We still read each other's posts to learn and that gives a better perspective overall. In some areas I err on the side of freedom and he errs on the side of caution but there is a core of agreement that underlies much of our differences. If you are going to continue enjoying arguing all those things that "get you in trouble" you have to find that core. Otherwise you will just discredit yourself as being worth the effort of a debate with the few who you can learn from. Unless they just like playing with you.

[magellan315]

...They had a friend who had been monitoring this thread that had a question for me....

 

What was question. What was the answer? You should have no problem providing this.

 

It didn't really pertain directly to the discussion...it was more regarding whether there were "unlisted" geocaches similar to letterboxing. They thought letterboxes were automatically listed here also due to the hybrid type listing.

 

At least you were upfront enough to provide us this.

 

This question does concern me, its clear the ABDSP had a perception about GC.com being responsible for letter boxes. Which makes me ask what other misinformed perceptions do they have about Geocaching that lead them to this ban and if any of them are valid. Its unfortunate they didn't talk to local Geocachers first and getting their facts right. Now they are hiding behind vauge statements about environmental damage that may have occured due to their failure to investigate until after the descison

Edited January 29, 2008 by magellan315

[+egami]

At least you were upfront enough to provide us this.

 

It isn't about being "up front"...it's about respecting someones request not to be named or quoted.

[+Team Cotati]

Since Egami has entered this thread I have gotten really tired of the way it has played out.

 

I have been in this thread from page one.

 

Don't falsely accuse me of anything when you have no idea what my level of communication is...I have a personal high school, childhood friend that works in that park. I have every right to inquire their opinion on the situation.

 

There is no need for you, or TG, to make any assumption on what my impact as been when you clearly don't have a clue.

Your nameless friend? If they are unwilling to share their name they are either worried about retaliation or they are not the right person to be talking to. They are only good as an information source and only within their limits and since they are nameless and working through you are not much help to the people working on this in CA.

 

Could you please give a summary of what things have transpired thus far wrt the work that has been done?

 

Thank you.

[+egami]

...Quite frankly it's comical to what lengths you, TrailGators, Miragee and others will go to in order to defend all of your "opinions" on it....

 

One of my opinions is based on a BLM policy paper about caching. Do you know which one? Didn't think so.

Unfortunatly you lack the depth of experience to do more than thrash about like a fish out of water. That's fine, we can all learn. The trick is to be interested in learning.

 

Have you noticed that TrailGators and I don't always agree? We still read each other's posts to learn and that gives a better perspective overall. In some areas I err on the side of freedom and he errs on the side of caution but there is a core of agreement that underlies much of our differences. If you are going to continue enjoying arguing all those things that "get you in trouble" you have to find that core. Otherwise you will just discredit yourself as being worth the effort of a debate with the few who you can learn from. Unless they just like playing with you.

 

I don't care about your opinion on BLM policy...and, actually, yes I do know about BLM policy regarding geocaching because we've discussed it on the Iowa forums. In fact, I believe I might have been the one that link the BLM policy for reference.

 

Regardless, keep flinging mud...it's what you do best...

[+Team Cotati]

...Quite frankly it's comical to what lengths you, TrailGators, Miragee and others will go to in order to defend all of your "opinions" on it....

 

One of my opinions is based on a BLM policy paper about caching. Do you know which one? Didn't think so.

Unfortunatly you lack the depth of experience to do more than thrash about like a fish out of water. That's fine, we can all learn. The trick is to be interested in learning.

 

Have you noticed that TrailGators and I don't always agree? We still read each other's posts to learn and that gives a better perspective overall. In some areas I err on the side of freedom and he errs on the side of caution but there is a core of agreement that underlies much of our differences. If you are going to continue enjoying arguing all those things that "get you in trouble" you have to find that core. Otherwise you will just discredit yourself as being worth the effort of a debate with the few who you can learn from. Unless they just like playing with you.

 

I don't care about your opinion on BLM policy...and, actually, yes I do know about BLM policy regarding geocaching because we've discussed it on the Iowa forums. In fact, I believe I might have been the one that link the BLM policy for reference.

 

Regardless, keep flinging mud...it's what you do best...

 

For everyone's benefit:

 

"BLM's Geocaching Game Rules

Identify proposed cache locations to the local BLM office before placing a cache

Do not place caches at archaeological sites

Obtain a BLM permit for any competitive events, contests for prizes, paid participation, or caches hosted by commercial business

Advise BLM if you observe any misuse or abuse of a cache location

There's no Excuse for Abuse!

Please help us protect our public lands by contacting the local BLM office if you observe or become aware of the following at a cache location:

 

Graffiti

Digging

Trash

Illegal off-road vehicle use

Vandalism

Suspicious behavior, substances, or objects

Commercial use or sponsorship"

 

Geocaching may become a management concern for BLM if it jeopardizes public health and safety, causes environmental damage, or conflicts with other authorized uses.

 

You can avoid concern about establishing a cache by contacting the local BLM office to identify the intended location and request authorization. BLM will be happy to check that the proposed cache location:

 

Is not near a known archaeological site

Will not interfere with threatened or endangered species habitat

Will not conflict with other land uses

Is not hazardous

Requires no other special considerations

Related Links

Edited January 29, 2008 by Team Cotati

[magellan315]

At least you were upfront enough to provide us this.

 

It isn't about being "up front"...it's about respecting someones request not to be named or quoted.

 

When you reference e-mails between you and a ranger at the ABDSP about the damage Geocaches have created. If you can't quote the information, even if you withhold the name, than all you are stating is your interpretation. Not verifiable facts.

[+Team Cotati]

People were just "getting away" with it, which they clearly had no right to do.

 

No right? Unless there are existing policies or regulations, I ought to have a right to engage in any activities that are legal and essentially harmless on public lands.

 

ACK! It is particularly upsetting to me to see a moderator on this forum holding this position. What are you afraid of briansnat? Why not just approach the land manager, explain geocaching and its benefits, and get the proper permission? Scared of rejection?

 

Nope, I just have a fundamental problem with the idea of begging my government for permission to do something that is legal and relatively benign.

 

And as a result, you are going to be fundamentally bothered having to 'beg' your gubmint for the remainder of your life.

 

High drama.

 

It's not about you.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+egami]

When you reference e-mails between you and a ranger at the ABDSP about the damage Geocaches have created. If you can't quote the information, even if you withhold the name, than all you are stating is your interpretation. Not verifiable facts.

 

I never stated otherwise....

[+Renegade Knight]

...I don't care about you or anyone else and just like to hear myself argue...

 

I accept your position. Now I will focus on having fun.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

For everyone's benefit:

 

"BLM's Geocaching Game Rules"...

 

They had an earlier paper that stated that caching was a valid casual use of their lands. That gave caching a thumbs up. The casual use was the key part.

[+egami]

...my position is that you are being deliberately close-minded and purposely ignoring the logical, sensible side of the argument...

 

I accept your position. Now I will focus on having fun.

 

Thanks.

[+egami]

For everyone's benefit:

 

"BLM's Geocaching Game Rules

Identify proposed cache locations to the local BLM office before placing a cache

Do not place caches at archaeological sites

Obtain a BLM permit for any competitive events, contests for prizes, paid participation, or caches hosted by commercial business

Advise BLM if you observe any misuse or abuse of a cache location

There's no Excuse for Abuse!

Please help us protect our public lands by contacting the local BLM office if you observe or become aware of the following at a cache location:

 

What's interesting is one of their official policy links was "updated" 01/02/08...wonder if they are altering policy...

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

...my position is that you are being deliberately close-minded and purposely ignoring the logical, sensible side of the argument...

 

I accept your position. Now I will focus on having fun.

 

Thanks.

 

Strangly enough the logical, sensible people in this thread think that about you egami.

[+egami]

Strangly enough the logical, sensible people in this thread think that about you egami.

 

I guess if being sensible and logical is being deliberately one-sided on issues and unwilling to learn the other side of a story....then I'll gladly let that ship sail.

[+TrailGators]

My time away from this thread gave me some time to think and let the calm analytical side of me come out. Anyhow, I did some research on ABDSP and according to this website there are approximately 4000 archaelogical sites that have been identified in the 650,000 acres of this park. ABDSP is largest state park in the contiguous United States. Interesting! Anyhow, I thought I would calculate the odds of a geocache being placed less than 200 feet to one of these 4000 archaelogical sites if all cachers had completely ignored the guidelines given to us by park officials fours years ago. This calculation assumes a random distribution of 300 traditional caches in the entire park, which is what we estimated based on our analysis. The calculation is actually very simple. A 200 foot diameter circle (the stay away zone per the guidelines) around each archaelogical site is an area equal to ~3 acres. Therefore 4000 sites would equal ~12,000 acres of land that we are not permitted to place a cache. Since the park is 650,000 acres this means that only 1.85% of the park is off-limits because of archaelogical sites (12,000/650,000). So the odds of placing a cache randomly within 200 feet of an archaelogical site is only 1.85%. This means that out of the 300 caches in ABDSP that the odds are that only 5 caches are within 200 feet of an archaelogical site. Of course this is only if every cacher disregarded the park guidelines when placing a cache, which is very unlikely. It is very possible that some knuckeheads did hide a few. However, even if this happened, then why not just remove those caches and let the reviewers know? This is the thing a lot of us just don't understand after all the CITOs we have done for this park....

Edited January 30, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

Strangly enough the logical, sensible people in this thread think that about you egami.

 

I guess if being sensible and logical is being deliberately one-sided on issues and unwilling to learn the other side of a story....then I'll gladly let that ship sail.

 

You may not see it but that is exactly what you do in every thread you post in, you are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong and no matter what you will not change your mind. That's fine, but when you twist it around and pretend it's everybody else who's doing it you aren't fooling anyone.

 

Plain and simple we have heard as much of the rangers side as they are willing to tell us and I don't think anybody is wrong for basing an opinion on the situation from the presented statements.

 

And your statement that your friend is sending you e-mails asking questions makes you look more like an informant for their side than a fearless crusader for justice. Stay out of it and let the folks in the area work out a solution, until they do you are part of the problem, not the solution.

When this is all cleared up you can resume your cozy friendship that you forgot you had for ten years.

[+Team Cotati]

...

For everyone's benefit:

 

"BLM's Geocaching Game Rules"...

 

They had an earlier paper that stated that caching was a valid casual use of their lands. That gave caching a thumbs up. The casual use was the key part.

 

Had.

 

Got it.

[magellan315]

Strangly enough the logical, sensible people in this thread think that about you egami.

 

I guess if being sensible and logical is being deliberately one-sided on issues and unwilling to learn the other side of a story....then I'll gladly let that ship sail.

 

As I have stated before I would be more than glad to learn about the ABDSP's side and since you can not reveal the contents of the e-mails you have, we are left with their "facts".

 

According to the ABDSP there are numerous and/or hundreds of Geocaches that have been placed in areas that are environmentally or archaeological sensitive. Yet they have not provided the names, locations, or documentation of the damage of any of these Geocaches. So what exactly is their side of this?

 

There was a Geocaching policy in place for 4 years and the park had a CITO every six months and yet no one at the ABDSP ws willing to contact the Geocachers they knew to work with them. At the very least they could have given everyone 30 days to remove their caches which would have saved the park money and manpower bynot using the rangers.

Edited January 30, 2008 by magellan315

[+TrailGators]

 

Which is precisely what I said...it turns out I know someone that is a Ranger there and I trust their perception. As far as "working through you"...whatever that means, no one is working on anything I know someone who works there. They had a friend who had been monitoring this thread that had a question for me.

 

Quite frankly it's comical to what lengths you, TrailGators, Miragee and others will go to in order to defend all of your "opinions" on it. Some of you making blind accusations on the part of management and now other cachers. You have no more factually based information on caches causing problems then that which you are demanding from the ABDSP people.

 

Just like a few pages back when the three individuals flamed me to no end for simply being interested in hearing another perspective. I think the level of intensity is inversely proportional to the usefulness of the current state of this thread.

 

I for one would love to hear from another perspective on this situation, from the ABDSP staff. Not a Geocacher who no familiarity with the ABDSP. Your friend the ranger has given you information that you feel shows that Geocachers have been responsible for these vague claims of environmental damage. But because you cannot reveal it we can only take your word at it, just like we are supposed to take the word of the ABDSP. This about respecting the ABDSP and verifying their claims.

 

Now you tell us you answered a question for a friend of the ABDSP staff who is monitoring this thread. Given your belief that the ABDSP is right about this matter I concerned how you may have affected the negotiations that are occurring at the local level.

 

The intensity of this thread is proportional to the usefulness of this thread. Your telling us the ABDSP is right in their actions, but you will not provide the information you have. Anytime someone has questioned the ABDSP position you have stated that we are questioning the integrity of the ABDSP staff. The ABDSP has made blind accusations about numerous and/or hundreds of Geocaches that have been placed in sensitive areas that are damaging their surroundings. Without providing any information to investigate these claims. No one is questioning the integrity, we are questioning how they made this decision.

 

If the ABDSP is monitoring this thread then I invite them to provide the GC numbers of the hundreds of caches in violation and the nature of the violation. So Groundspeak and local cachers can verify this. Two years ago in South Carolina a state legislator attempted to ban Geocaching within South Carolina. When she brought her proof forward it turned out to that some claims had been misrepresented and others had been invented.

This is exactly right magellan315. We live in a country that professes innocence until proven guilty. It's simply a matter of getting the facts on the table because misunderstandings/misrepresentations often cause false conclusions/accusations. If these guys think there are hundreds of caches near sensitive sites then it is very likely that someone is feeding them some grossly wrong information. When this first popped out they said that there were 5000 caches out there because someone gave them very bad info. This is what really worries a lot of us. After reading the emails from egami/ranger, I can see that Jorgensen is being fed some very bad distorted information that is misrepresenting the vast majority of us without any proof. Edited January 30, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

....So the odds of placing a cache randomly within 200 feet of an archaelogical site is only 1.85%. This means that out of the 300 caches in ABDSP that the odds are that only 5 caches are within 200 feet of an archaelogical site. ...

 

I'll send you a link that I was just given. In that less than 1% of the parks land were identified as culturally sensitive. Plus it plays to keep in mind that not all cultural sites are sensitive to casual land use such as caching.

 

Your ball parks calcs are not too shabby.

 

It is random too. The park won't tell you the locations to let you know if the 5 are in the wrong spot. Nor should they. They should merely monitor and discretely ask the owner to pull the cache. No ill will in such a simple arrangement. The nice thing about caches is that they are easy to monitor unlike so many other things.