LEO requests removal

[+CharliePop]

As I was replacing a find tonight, I was approached by some Park Rangers who asked me my business. I explained myself and they said that the cache was not permitted and should be removed. They gave me permission to replace the cache so the owner could retrieve it.

What's the etiquette in this situation? Should I enter a "needs archived" log or just mention my encounter when I log the find and leave it up to the owner to remove the cache?

 

Apologies if this topic shows up elsewhere--I couldn't find it if it does.

 

CharliePop

 

"A plan is something from which to deviate."

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

As I was replacing a find tonight, I was approached by some Park Rangers who asked me my business. I explained myself and they said that the cache was not permitted and should be removed. They gave me permission to replace the cache so the owner could retrieve it.

What's the etiquette in this situation? Should I enter a "needs archived" log or just mention my encounter when I log the find and leave it up to the owner to remove the cache?

 

Apologies if this topic shows up elsewhere--I couldn't find it if it does.

 

CharliePop

 

"A plan is something from which to deviate."

When I've been in that situation, I left the info in my online log, and sent a personal note to the owner. If you feel you need to make a special log, the needs maintenence will go to the same people I think. (Cache owner and reviewer)

Edited March 6, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[CoyoteRed]

As I was replacing a find tonight, I was approached by some Park Rangers who asked me my business. I explained myself and they said that the cache was not permitted and should be removed. They gave me permission to replace the cache so the owner could retrieve it.

What's the etiquette in this situation? Should I enter a "needs archived" log or just mention my encounter when I log the find and leave it up to the owner to remove the cache?

Classic example of the use of "Should Be Archived."

 

The rangers, who have the authority to grant and deny permission, have asked that it be removed. You didn't say if they expected you to do the notification or they would. If they didn't mention they would do it then you should.

 

The reason I'd use an SBA log-type is because folks further up the food chain at Groundspeak will get notified. A Needs Maintenance, IIRC, does not, it only flags the cache. Besides, "maintenance" implies it needs fixing, not removing. Anyway, when you log an SBA, a reviewer will look at it and work with the owner in getting the problem resolved and it also alerts them to a particular park having issues with geocaching.

[+Quiggle]

When I've been in that situation, I left the info in my online log, and sent a personal note to the owner. If you feel you need to make a special log, the needs maintenence will go to the same people I think. (Cache owner and reviewer)

Needs Maintenance does NOT go to the reviewer, only Needs Archived.

 

The cache in question doesn't need maintenance, it needs to be archived as the rangers don't want it there. That would be the appropriate log to enter as it would get the reviewer involved who can then note that geocaching may not be allowed in that area. Also, if the owner is not active, or is away from a computer for a period of time, etc., the reviewer can archive which will speed up the process of removing the cache from the active list of caches in the area.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Just one minor note to the OP:

I note that you used the term LEO, i.e., "law enforcement officer" to describe the park ranger who approached you. Since the local DNR administrators with whom I work are always drilling the realities into my head, and since I also know a number of National Park Service rangers, I can tell you that in most areas, with some exceptions, park rangers are not usually considered to be law enforcement officers, but rather, in many cases, they are instead considered to be peace officers or nature interpreters. There is a pretty significant difference between these categories and LEO status.

[+sbell111]

... The rangers, who have the authority to grant and deny permission, have asked that it be removed. You didn't say if they expected you to do the notification or they would. If they didn't mention they would do it then you should. ...

I guess that it should be mentioned that the rangers may not be the appropriate contact to get permission to place the cache. Given this, permission may have been received and the rangers simply not aware of it. Further, they could be overstepping their authority in requesting it's removal. The owner, of course, is in a position to know whether or not permission was recieved from someone else.

 

Therefore, I see no problem with a 'needs maintenance' flag to alert other cachers of the issue and a email to the owner to explain the specifics of the interaction.

[+Kit Fox]

... The rangers, who have the authority to grant and deny permission, have asked that it be removed. You didn't say if they expected you to do the notification or they would. If they didn't mention they would do it then you should. ...

I guess that it should be mentioned that the rangers may not be the appropriate contact to get permission to place the cache. Given this, permission may have been received and the rangers simply not aware of it. Further, they could be overstepping their authority in requesting it's removal. The owner, of course, is in a position to know whether or not permission was recieved from someone else.

 

Therefore, I see no problem with a 'needs maintenance' flag to alert other cachers of the issue and a email to the owner to explain the specifics of the interaction.

 

I disagree, posting the needs archived log will alert the reviewer, who can work with the owner, and or check the "reviewer notes," to see if permission was granted for the hide, and by whom. Just because someone posts a needs archived log, does not mean the cache is "dead in the water." It simply means further investigation regarding the issues at hand will ensue.

 

IMNHO too many cachers are afraid to use the needs archived log, when it is truly appropriate.

[+palmetto]

posting the needs archived log will alert the reviewer, who can work with the owner, and or check the "reviewer notes," to see if permission was granted for the hide, and by whom. Just because someone posts a needs archived log, does not mean the cache is "dead in the water." It simply means further investigation regarding the issues at hand will ensue.

 

Yes, please post a Needs Archived. I published a cache with park manager permission. The first hunters of the cache were approached by a park ranger and asked to leave and remove the cache. Evidently the rangers hadn't been told of the cache approval. Just a communication failure within park management. Maybe somebody missed a memo. In any case the Needs Archived log is correct.

[+sbell111]

... The rangers, who have the authority to grant and deny permission, have asked that it be removed. You didn't say if they expected you to do the notification or they would. If they didn't mention they would do it then you should. ...

I guess that it should be mentioned that the rangers may not be the appropriate contact to get permission to place the cache. Given this, permission may have been received and the rangers simply not aware of it. Further, they could be overstepping their authority in requesting it's removal. The owner, of course, is in a position to know whether or not permission was recieved from someone else.

 

Therefore, I see no problem with a 'needs maintenance' flag to alert other cachers of the issue and a email to the owner to explain the specifics of the interaction.

I disagree, posting the needs archived log will alert the reviewer, who can work with the owner, and or check the "reviewer notes," to see if permission was granted for the hide, and by whom. Just because someone posts a needs archived log, does not mean the cache is "dead in the water." It simply means further investigation regarding the issues at hand will ensue. IMNHO too many cachers are afraid to use the needs archived log, when it is truly appropriate.

... and too many people jump to use it when it is not necessary to do so.

[+CharliePop]

Thanks all; will post a "needs archived."

Cheers,

CharliePop

[+Kit Fox]

Thanks all; will post a "needs archived."

Cheers,

CharliePop

 

It's very ironic that the cache you posted a needs archived log to, actually should have never been published in the first place. It was hidden 241 feet from one active cache, and 296 from another active cache.

[+sataraid1]

I think in order to simplify the situation and appease the ranger, I'd have simply taken the cache with me, posted an SBA clearly stating that the cache was removed, and emailed the owner directly and offered to ship the stuff to them or meet and deliver it in person.

 

The request to remove the cache might have been unfounded, but if the ranger wants to cop an attitude about it, they'll simply toss it in the trash the minute you leave without it. Better to have the owner sure of recovering his stuff than go all the way out there to retrieve it and find out that some ranger having a bad day just decided to heave it into a dumpster.

 

Plus, if the ranger turns out to have been in error, they're more likely to accept their error and not have a bad opinion of geocaching in general if their request was met with, at the very least, polite compliance.

 

FWIW

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I think in order to simplify the situation and appease the ranger, I'd have simply taken the cache with me, posted an SBA clearly stating that the cache was removed, and emailed the owner directly and offered to ship the stuff to them or meet and deliver it in person.

 

The request to remove the cache might have been unfounded, but if the ranger wants to cop an attitude about it, they'll simply toss it in the trash the minute you leave without it. Better to have the owner sure of recovering his stuff than go all the way out there to retrieve it and find out that some ranger having a bad day just decided to heave it into a dumpster.

 

Plus, if the ranger turns out to have been in error, they're more likely to accept their error and not have a bad opinion of geocaching in general if their request was met with, at the very least, polite compliance.

 

FWIW

 

Making the landowner happy is the important part, whether you own the cache or not.

 

I've done both, taken it away at the owner's request and left it in place and posted an SBA.

 

A third alternative that has worked for me numerous times is to explain that caches on private land require permission, explain the nature of the game, apologize that this hider failed to follow that guideline but assure him that it isn't the common practice and ask for permission for it to stay there.

 

I have only once been turned down... I have gotten permission at least 10 times for un-permissioned caches to remain in place.

 

Then I post a note explaining the situation and give the name and contact info of the person who gave permission.

[+Renegade Knight]

As I was replacing a find tonight, I was approached by some Park Rangers who asked me my business. I explained myself and they said that the cache was not permitted and should be removed. They gave me permission to replace the cache so the owner could retrieve it....

 

You obtain the contact information of the rangers so you can follow up with them.

Then you contact the owner and get a time frame for removal.

You then contact the rangers and relay the owners time frame. That lets you confirm there won't be a problem.

Then you wait and see if the owner does do their job as they said they would.

If they won't, or don't. You will need to use your judgment. The SBA may come into play, picking up the cache yourself and offering to drop it off somewher else may be the right thing.

When it's over confirm with the park rangers that it's done.

 

If you find out that the owner had permission and the park rangers didn't know, that's another set of steps.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I disagree, posting the needs archived log will alert the reviewer, who can work with the owner, and or check the "reviewer notes," to see if permission was granted for the hide, and by whom. Just because someone posts a needs archived log, does not mean the cache is "dead in the water." It simply means further investigation regarding the issues at hand will ensue. ...

 

The SBA is a public slap in the face. It's like berating your subordinate in public or among their peers. You use the SBA in emergencies where there is no time and you use the SBA when you are unable to work out the issue directly and it's time to call in some help because you have done your part.

 

In this case there was time. The SBA was not needed or required. It's Johnny on the spot who contacts me and who actually knows enough to help me. The reviewer is a last resort.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Just one minor note to the OP:

I note that you used the term LEO, i.e., "law enforcement officer" to describe the park ranger who approached you. Since the local DNR administrators with whom I work are always drilling the realities into my head, and since I also know a number of National Park Service rangers, I can tell you that in most areas, with some exceptions, park rangers are not usually considered to be law enforcement officers, but rather, in many cases, they are instead considered to be peace officers or nature interpreters. There is a pretty significant difference between these categories and LEO status.

All the rangers I have seen in N. Cal. carries guns and are LEOs

I also read that the cache in question was next to a National Park building, caches are not allowed in national parks, the Rangers may consider the building part of the national park system

[+JohnnyVegas]

...I disagree, posting the needs archived log will alert the reviewer, who can work with the owner, and or check the "reviewer notes," to see if permission was granted for the hide, and by whom. Just because someone posts a needs archived log, does not mean the cache is "dead in the water." It simply means further investigation regarding the issues at hand will ensue. ...

 

The SBA is a public slap in the face. It's like berating your subordinate in public or among their peers. You use the SBA in emergencies where there is no time and you use the SBA when you are unable to work out the issue directly and it's time to call in some help because you have done your part.

 

In this case there was time. The SBA was not needed or required. It's Johnny on the spot who contacts me and who actually knows enough to help me. The reviewer is a last resort.

It could be that a public slap in the face is needed when a cache had been placed in violation if the guidlines.

I am not speaking about the cache in question. There are illegal caches that need to go away. If you contact the cache owner, the cache owner will tell you to go away or will say they did not know, but they will not remove the cache. If a cache owner does not want to see a SBA on a cache, the cache owner should think before palcing the cache. Of course that meens the cache owner should read the guidlines to hidding a cache.

Now in this day and age it is not polictly correct to post a SBA. So most cachers are affraid to do so.

 

It's Johnny on the spot who contacts me and who actually knows enough to help me. The reviewer is a last resort.

In the real world, johnny on the spot gets ignored, the reviewer does not.

Edited March 6, 2008 by JohnnyVegas

[+StarBrand]

I would have offered to remove the cache, get the rangers names for followup. Post a carefully worded SBA log that would invoke some action. Offer to return the cache to either the owner or the hiding place (whichever is appropriate). Followup with the rangers and thank them for working with you. If appropriate - leave a followup note on the listing about the outcome.

[+Moose Mob]

As I was replacing a find tonight, I was approached by some Park Rangers who asked me my business. I explained myself and they said that the cache was not permitted and should be removed. They gave me permission to replace the cache so the owner could retrieve it.

What's the etiquette in this situation? Should I enter a "needs archived" log or just mention my encounter when I log the find and leave it up to the owner to remove the cache?

 

Apologies if this topic shows up elsewhere--I couldn't find it if it does.

 

CharliePop

 

"A plan is something from which to deviate."

Post a "Needs Archived" log. If it's in Nevada, I will look into it.

Edit: never mind. Looks like it's under control.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Moose Mob

[+Phipps Family]

I note that you used the term LEO, i.e., "law enforcement officer" to describe the park ranger who approached you. Since the local DNR administrators with whom I work are always drilling the realities into my head, and since I also know a number of National Park Service rangers, I can tell you that in most areas, with some exceptions, park rangers are not usually considered to be law enforcement officers, but rather, in many cases, they are instead considered to be peace officers or nature interpreters. There is a pretty significant difference between these categories and LEO status.

 

Around here the "park rangers" are Law Enforcement Officers.

[+Kit Fox]

...I disagree, posting the needs archived log will alert the reviewer, who can work with the owner, and or check the "reviewer notes," to see if permission was granted for the hide, and by whom. Just because someone posts a needs archived log, does not mean the cache is "dead in the water." It simply means further investigation regarding the issues at hand will ensue. ...

 

The SBA is a public slap in the face. It's like berating your subordinate in public or among their peers. You use the SBA in emergencies where there is no time and you use the SBA when you are unable to work out the issue directly and it's time to call in some help because you have done your part.

 

In this case there was time. The SBA was not needed or required. It's Johnny on the spot who contacts me and who actually knows enough to help me. The reviewer is a last resort.

 

So far three reviewers suggested posting a needs archived log. If someone's feelings get hurt, because of this, perhaps they should have sought permission to place this cache in the first place.

 

For those who are curious, the cache was a two inch long rubber mouse with a small logged roled up inside. The "OP" posted this log on the Earthcache located a few feet away from the cache in question.

"Hit this location at 7:50 in the evening so I can't really log it as a find--the visitors center is only open from 8:30-5:00. "

 

Hunting a cache on National Park property after dark is almost guaranteed to arouse suspicion of the Park Rangers.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+uxorious]

I think in order to simplify the situation and appease the ranger, I'd have simply taken the cache with me, posted an SBA clearly stating that the cache was removed, and emailed the owner directly

 

If the ranger wants it removed it might be a good idea to take it. However, in this case it sounds as if the ranger was OK with the finder replacing the cache, and having the cache owner take care of it.

If the ranger gives permission to replace it and leave it for the owner to take care of, that would be the simple solution. It is nearly always better to let the cache owner work it out, if it can be done.

 

The SBA is a public slap in the face. It's like berating your subordinate in public or among their peers.

 

While there could be some cases the SBA may be a public slap, in most cases that is ridiculous. The only way I would feel a SBA would be a slap in the face would be it I did something I was trying to keep under the radar of the powers that be. Someone who feels insulted by a SBA is probably a little too sensitive.

[+sbell111]

The "OP" posted this log on the Earthcache located a few feet away from the cache in question.

"Hit this location at 7:50 in the evening so I can't really log it as a find--the visitors center is only open from 8:30-5:00. "

 

Hunting a cache on National Park property after dark is almost guaranteed to arouse suspicion of the Park Rangers.

The earthcache required you to enter the visitor's center. It is quite possible that the area was open, but the visitor's center closed. It happens all the time.

[+sbell111]

It's very ironic that the cache you posted a needs archived log to, actually should have never been published in the first place. It was hidden 241 feet from one active cache, and 296 from another active cache.

The reviewers frequently allow caches that are closer than the limits stated in the guidelines. Obviously, in 1996 2006 when this cache was placed, the reviewer didn't see a problem with the distance from other caches. There is a reason that they are called guidelines, not rules. Edited March 7, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

BTW, who ever said that Ventura Harbor was a national park? The Channel Islands National Park mainland visitor's center is there, but the park itself only consists of the islands, to my understanding.

[+StarBrand]

It's very ironic that the cache you posted a needs archived log to, actually should have never been published in the first place. It was hidden 241 feet from one active cache, and 296 from another active cache.

The reviewers frequently allow caches that are closer than the limits stated in the guidelines. Obviously, in 1996 when this cache was placed, the reviewer didn't see a problem with the distance from other caches. There is a reason that they are called guidelines, not rules.

Really........

[miles_vagar]

The cache in question was placed in 2006, actually. I think most of the same guidelines were in place then.

Edited March 6, 2008 by miles_vagar

[+Renegade Knight]

...So far three reviewers suggested posting a needs archived log....

 

Reviewers are not responsible for the cache. That's spelled out in the Terms of Use for this site. Unless the reviewer is in fact the Johnny on the spot they can't even do anything about the cache. Remember the problem is the cache. Not the listing.

 

Responisble people deal with the responsible party. Reviewers are plan b.

[+Renegade Knight]

...It could be that a public slap in the face is needed when a cache had been placed in violation if the guidlines....

It's Johnny on the spot who contacts me and who actually knows enough to help me. The reviewer is a last resort.

In the real world, johnny on the spot gets ignored, the reviewer does not.

 

You have to remember the guidelines have several parts. What's good for caching, what's good for this site, and what's this site wants that isn't either of the other two. A simple alledged violation of the guidelines doesn't rise to an SBA level until some legwork is done. That legwork starts with the one responsible for the cache. Not the one responsible for the caches listing or archived status.

 

In my world Johnny on the spot is the guy who's got the chance to be the hero or zero. If that's me and it's your cache I will take care of the problem. I'm not so spineless that I have to call in a reviewer to do the right thing. Some are. You would hear from me, the situation, my suggested solution and I'd wait to hear back. Obviously as the cache owner you may have information that I don't. If you want to be a jerk and tell me to buzz off that's your choice. However since I'm the one holding the bag and the park rangers number. That's the wrong answer. I'll take care of that cache because I am the one who had to appease the ranger and I'm the one who's going to follow up because they spoke to me, not you, and not the reivewer. When my butt's on the line, you would get a chance to do the right thing. Do it and life is good. Fail, I'll make sure we have happy land owners. You may not be as happy.

 

Unfortuantly too many people see this site as the authority on caches instead of the owner in spite of how hard this site works to remind us all that we are responsible for our caches and for our efforts to seek them. The SBA is, was, and remains a last resort when reasonable efforts have failed. But first those efforts need to be made.

[GlfWrVt]

As I was replacing a find tonight, I was approached by some Park Rangers who asked me my business. I explained myself and they said that the cache was not permitted and should be removed. They gave me permission to replace the cache so the owner could retrieve it.

What's the etiquette in this situation? Should I enter a "needs archived" log or just mention my encounter when I log the find and leave it up to the owner to remove the cache?

 

Apologies if this topic shows up elsewhere--I couldn't find it if it does.

 

CharliePop

 

"A plan is something from which to deviate."

 

Your business is none of thiers.

 

I'm just sayin'...

 

-Mark.

[+briansnat]

The SBA is a public slap in the face. It's like berating your subordinate in public or among their peers. You use the SBA in emergencies where there is no time and you use the SBA when you are unable to work out the issue directly and it's time to call in some help because you have done your part

 

Actually no, you use an SBA when a cache should be archived, or you at least think there is good cause for it to be archived. Being approached by park officials who tell you the cache is not allowed is certainly good cause.

 

I don't know where you get this "slap in the face" nonsense. If one of my caches received an SBA I would determine if the reason was valid or not. If it is, then I archive. If not, then no skin off my back. An SBA log is a tool and nothing more. If you look at it as a slap in the face, then perhaps you need thicker skin.

[+Kit Fox]

It's very ironic that the cache you posted a needs archived log to, actually should have never been published in the first place. It was hidden 241 feet from one active cache, and 296 from another active cache.

The reviewers frequently allow caches that are closer than the limits stated in the guidelines. Obviously, in 1996 when this cache was placed, the reviewer didn't see a problem with the distance from other caches. There is a reason that they are called guidelines, not rules.

 

Sure he did! He may have been busy, and published the cache anyway, without remembering the proximty issues.

 

 

October 3, 2006 by Marko Ramius (0 found)

Published

 

October 1, 2006 by Marko Ramius (0 found)

With the new coords, now it seems there are now proximity issues with this cache. Can cache owner please verify coords and proximity to other caches? Thanks, -MR

 

October 1, 2006 by Marko Ramius (0 found)

N 34° 14.918 W 119° 16.027

At request of cache owner.

 

 

 

Usually an exceptions are made due to physical barriers like rivers, lakes, cliffs, etc. In this example the barrier was a three foot wall surrounding the visitor center, and some beach sand.

[+PJPeters]

Just one minor note to the OP:

I note that you used the term LEO, i.e., "law enforcement officer" to describe the park ranger who approached you. Since the local DNR administrators with whom I work are always drilling the realities into my head, and since I also know a number of National Park Service rangers, I can tell you that in most areas, with some exceptions, park rangers are not usually considered to be law enforcement officers, but rather, in many cases, they are instead considered to be peace officers or nature interpreters. There is a pretty significant difference between these categories and LEO status.

Michigan Park Rangers are Department of Natural Resources Officers. They have as much power as a State Police Officer, or more. And I really don't think it matters in this instance whether they are LEO or not; they are the property managers, so their decisions are to be respected.

 

As I was replacing a find tonight, I was approached by some Park Rangers who asked me my business. I explained myself and they said that the cache was not permitted and should be removed. They gave me permission to replace the cache so the owner could retrieve it.

What's the etiquette in this situation? Should I enter a "needs archived" log or just mention my encounter when I log the find and leave it up to the owner to remove the cache?

 

Apologies if this topic shows up elsewhere--I couldn't find it if it does.

 

CharliePop

 

"A plan is something from which to deviate."

 

Your business is none of thiers.

 

I'm just sayin'...

 

-Mark.

I disagree. It's attitudes like that that hurt geocaching as a whole. "Sorry Officer, but this doesn't concern me. What's that? You're going to prohibit all caches in state parks now? Not my problem." That doesn't seem to fit.

[+Renegade Knight]

....If one of my caches received an SBA I would determine if the reason was valid or not. If it is, then I archive. If not, then no skin off my back...

 

Most every SBA I've ever seen or dealt with were false, jumping the gun, or someones ill guided attempt to do the right thing and failing. Not once have I seen any of these folks actually talk to the cache owner who is the only one in a position to do anything. An SBA means "Should be Archived". Not "I Think that maybe something is up but I'm not sure and I'm too afraid to say anything ot the cache owner so I want to get the attetnion of the reivewer". In other words, how it's intended to be used and how it's used are different. It's become a tool for going over the head of the cache owner.

 

When you go over someones head, that's not a good thing. Make it public, that's the slap in the face.

 

Do the right thing and contact the cache owner first. The and only then do you take the next step and use the SBA. As for the no skin off your back true as long as you don't mind wasting your time appeasing the SBA logger and the reviewer when you could be doing something else like dealing with a real issue.

[+sbell111]

It's very ironic that the cache you posted a needs archived log to, actually should have never been published in the first place. It was hidden 241 feet from one active cache, and 296 from another active cache.

The reviewers frequently allow caches that are closer than the limits stated in the guidelines. Obviously, in 1996 when this cache was placed, the reviewer didn't see a problem with the distance from other caches. There is a reason that they are called guidelines, not rules.

Really........

Obviously, I meant 2006. The fact that I typed an obviously incorrect year doesn't invalidate my point.

[+sbell111]

It's very ironic that the cache you posted a needs archived log to, actually should have never been published in the first place. It was hidden 241 feet from one active cache, and 296 from another active cache.

The reviewers frequently allow caches that are closer than the limits stated in the guidelines. Obviously, in 1996 when this cache was placed, the reviewer didn't see a problem with the distance from other caches. There is a reason that they are called guidelines, not rules.

Sure he did! He may have been busy, and published the cache anyway, without remembering the proximty issues.

 

October 3, 2006 by Marko Ramius (0 found)

Published

 

October 1, 2006 by Marko Ramius (0 found)

With the new coords, now it seems there are now proximity issues with this cache. Can cache owner please verify coords and proximity to other caches? Thanks, -MR

 

October 1, 2006 by Marko Ramius (0 found)

N 34° 14.918 W 119° 16.027

At request of cache owner.

 

Usually an exceptions are made due to physical barriers like rivers, lakes, cliffs, etc. In this example the barrier was a three foot wall surrounding the visitor center, and some beach sand.

Without remembering proximity issues??? Something tells me that proximity is one of the things that reviewers check every single time. Either way, a reviewer who allows a cache within closer than the limits in the guidelines shouldn't be second guessed by players without good cause, in my opinion.

[+JohnnyVegas]

It's very ironic that the cache you posted a needs archived log to, actually should have never been published in the first place. It was hidden 241 feet from one active cache, and 296 from another active cache.

The reviewers frequently allow caches that are closer than the limits stated in the guidelines. Obviously, in 1996 when this cache was placed, the reviewer didn't see a problem with the distance from other caches. There is a reason that they are called guidelines, not rules.

Really........

Hmm 1996? Hmm

[Clan Riffster]

Most every SBA I've ever seen or dealt with were false, jumping the gun, or someones ill guided attempt to do the right thing and failing.

How many SBA's have you seen?

Seriously though, I've yet to see an SBA. I think the Reviewers probably have a better handle on when, why & how an SBA should be used than the average geocacher. In this instance, the Reviewers that have read the OP are unanimous in mentioning that an SBA would be appropriate. Good enough for me.

[+PhxChem]

I'm not so spineless that I have to call in a reviewer to do the right thing.

 

Maybe they're the only ones who would do the "right" thing?

 

At least a per Geocache policy.....

[jholly]

Most every SBA I've ever seen or dealt with were false, jumping the gun, or someones ill guided attempt to do the right thing and failing.

How many SBA's have you seen?

Seriously though, I've yet to see an SBA. I think the Reviewers probably have a better handle on when, why & how an SBA should be used than the average geocacher. In this instance, the Reviewers that have read the OP are unanimous in mentioning that an SBA would be appropriate. Good enough for me.

 

You know, you might not see many SBA's. After all the purpose of a SBA is to get the cache archived and once archived you don't see it anymore. doh.

 

Jim

[CoyoteRed]

Do the right thing and contact the cache owner first.

As soon as a log is written an email is sent off to the owner. That's contact.

 

An SBA log is also sent to the reviewers. That's also contact.

 

It also happens to be public. This is something you want. You don't want cachers with the latest data tromping through where the rangers don't want them going and further complicating future negotiations. Keeping the issue hidden and under the table doesn't do the caching public any good.

 

It's also good PR if the rangers want to investigate further. An SBA tells them their concerns are being taken seriously. It tells them we can police ourselves. If we went the "contact the owner first" route, how long do you wait for the owner to respond? How long do you wait for him to post something to the cache page? The reviewer may do the same after you contact pushing the archival time back even further--all the while the rangers are wondering if anything is going to be done. If I were in their shoes I'd not be happy.

 

An SBA is a strong alert to everyone. It stands out. Because it is a different log-type it has a different icon easily picked on a scan of the page. A note does not carry the same weight. An SBA tells everyone there is a problem and the log should be read for further information.

[+Renegade Knight]

Do the right thing and contact the cache owner first.

As soon as a log is written an email is sent off to the owner. That's contact....

 

That's a log. Contact means communications.

 

Either cache owners are resonsbile or someone else is. Who's the someone else? This site? Will any reviewer with a brain step forward and take responsiblity for my cache? I doubt it.

 

Too many people are in line to work around the one person who is responsible for the cache. The rule for real life and caching is to work with the person responsible. There is always an exception, there is a time when if that fails you kick things up a notch. However when it comes to caches most folks are in line to make the exception the rule.

 

The steps I outlined in my first post in this thread would work. They would make the rangers happy and they would make the cache owner happy. Win Win. That's not broken.

[+Renegade Knight]

...You know, you might not see many SBA's. After all the purpose of a SBA is to get the cache archived and once archived you don't see it anymore. doh.

 

Jim

I delete bogus SBA logs. What I see mostly is our local cache maggot using the SBA log as a tool to wreak havok. Then there are maintaince logs. Those I see used when somebody who hasn't found my cache thinks that because they can't find it that my cache is messed up and needs help. Where I've emailed them and asked a question that would tell me if they are right and the cache is MIA or needs checked they typically don't bother with an answer. Apparently they are only capable of invoking a higher authority before they cut and run.

 

The Irony of the NM log is that I can read regular logs as well. If the log says "the log was wet" I read that. Putting it on two logs one for the find and one for the maintance really doesnt' do much for an active owner, and it won't help an inactive owner either. I've read where one owner really doesn't bother to read logs but does look for the NM log flag. In that case it would help them, but then so would taking time to read the logs to begin with as they should be doing.

[+briansnat]

The steps I outlined in my first post in this thread would work. They would make the rangers happy and they would make the cache owner happy. Win Win. That's not broken.

 

Your steps put me as the finder in the position of being an intermediary in the situation. Why should I have to spend my time and coin working things out for the cache owner?

 

No thanks. I'll just use the system the way it was intended and log an SBA. The rangers will be happy and if the cache owner has a problem with it, then perhaps he just isn't cut out for cache ownership.

[+CharliePop]

I think in order to simplify the situation and appease the ranger, I'd have simply taken the cache with me, posted an SBA clearly stating that the cache was removed, and emailed the owner directly and offered to ship the stuff to them or meet and deliver it in person.

 

The request to remove the cache might have been unfounded, but if the ranger wants to cop an attitude about it, they'll simply toss it in the trash the minute you leave without it. Better to have the owner sure of recovering his stuff than go all the way out there to retrieve it and find out that some ranger having a bad day just decided to heave it into a dumpster.

 

Plus, if the ranger turns out to have been in error, they're more likely to accept their error and not have a bad opinion of geocaching in general if their request was met with, at the very least, polite compliance.

 

FWIW

The rangers were most pleasant and did not, in any way, shape or form, "cop an attitude." I asked them if it would be okay to replace it so the owner could retrieve and they were fine with that.

 

Your post implies that their request was met with something other than polite compliance but that was not the case: they explicitly gave me permission to leave it so it could be retrieved by the owner. Really, it was the most pleasant encounter of that sort I've had--I wish all rangers/cops/sheriffs/security guards etc were as nice as those rangers were.

 

Cheers,

CharliePop

[+Renegade Knight]

The steps I outlined in my first post in this thread would work. They would make the rangers happy and they would make the cache owner happy. Win Win. That's not broken.

 

Your steps put me as the finder in the position of being an intermediary in the situation. Why should I have to spend my time and coin working things out for the cache owner?

 

No thanks. I'll just use the system the way it was intended and log an SBA. The rangers will be happy and if the cache owner has a problem with it, then perhaps he just isn't cut out for cache ownership.

 

To answer your first question about why should you have to spend your time... You don't. You have the option to be a complete doofus. That's your choice. To answer your second statment. Again you have a choice. To do the right thing or be abrasive and wonder why you rub some folks wrong. Again your choice. If you have a problem taking the more honorable path, perhaps being a finder carries to much risk for you.

[4wheelin_fool]

Just one minor note to the OP:

I note that you used the term LEO, i.e., "law enforcement officer" to describe the park ranger who approached you. Since the local DNR administrators with whom I work are always drilling the realities into my head, and since I also know a number of National Park Service rangers, I can tell you that in most areas, with some exceptions, park rangers are not usually considered to be law enforcement officers, but rather, in many cases, they are instead considered to be peace officers or nature interpreters. There is a pretty significant difference between these categories and LEO status.

 

Actually in many cases, park rangers DO have the same authority as police officers to write tickets and arrest people. (depending on the area) My first traffic ticket was written by a park ranger in a state forest. I was 18 and driving my 71' Mustang fastback very slowly (about 5 mph) down a dirt road when a park ranger pops out of nowhere and she started screaming at me about the 16 yr old girl who was riding/sunbathing on the hood. Although it was my first traffic ticket, it was also became obvious after 10 minutes that she had never written a ticket before either. They can[i/] arrest people, but they have much less training and experience to do so than a LEO.

[+briansnat]

The steps I outlined in my first post in this thread would work. They would make the rangers happy and they would make the cache owner happy. Win Win. That's not broken.

 

Your steps put me as the finder in the position of being an intermediary in the situation. Why should I have to spend my time and coin working things out for the cache owner?

 

No thanks. I'll just use the system the way it was intended and log an SBA. The rangers will be happy and if the cache owner has a problem with it, then perhaps he just isn't cut out for cache ownership.

 

To answer your first question about why should you have to spend your time... You don't. You have the option to be a complete doofus. That's your choice. To answer your second statment. Again you have a choice. To do the right thing or be abrasive and wonder why you rub some folks wrong. Again your choice. If you have a problem taking the more honorable path, perhaps being a finder carries to much risk for you.

 

So using the system as it was designed to be used is somehow less than honorable?

[+Too Tall John]

The SBA is a public slap in the face. It's like berating your subordinate in public or among their peers. You use the SBA in emergencies where there is no time and you use the SBA when you are unable to work out the issue directly and it's time to call in some help because you have done your part.

That's not how I read it in the FAQ at all:

What is an "SBA log"?

 

"SBA" is short for "Should Be Archived," a special type of log that a geocacher can write on a cache page. Examples of when an SBA should be logged include caches placed on posted private property, and caches neglected by the owner.

 

Once an SBA log is posted, a notification is sent to the volunteer cache reviewer team. We then take a look at the cache page and decide how to handle the situation -- one option being to archive the cache.

 

On the cache page, this option is shown as "Needs Archived." It used to say "Should be Archived" and the "SBA" acronym continues to stick around.

Doesn't say anything about "working it out first," not one bit.

Unfortuantly too many people see this site as the authority on caches instead of the owner in spite of how hard this site works to remind us all that we are responsible for our caches and for our efforts to seek them. The SBA is, was, and remains a last resort when reasonable efforts have failed. But first those efforts need to be made.

While the site might not be the final authority on caches, they are, in fact, the final authority on cache logs on this site. The FAQ is pretty clear, and doesn't have any of your qualifiers for posting SBA's. You are coming up with your own qualifications for a SBA log, when you don't have that power.

 

CoyoteRed makes some excellent points:

It (an SBA) also happens to be public. This is something you want. You don't want cachers with the latest data tromping through where the rangers don't want them going and further complicating future negotiations. Keeping the issue hidden and under the table doesn't do the caching public any good.

 

It's also good PR if the rangers want to investigate further. An SBA tells them their concerns are being taken seriously. It tells them we can police ourselves. If we went the "contact the owner first" route, how long do you wait for the owner to respond? How long do you wait for him to post something to the cache page? The reviewer may do the same after you contact pushing the archival time back even further--all the while the rangers are wondering if anything is going to be done. If I were in their shoes I'd not be happy.

 

An SBA is a strong alert to everyone. It stands out. Because it is a different log-type it has a different icon easily picked on a scan of the page. A note does not carry the same weight. An SBA tells everyone there is a problem and the log should be read for further information.

In summary:

• SBA should be posted when you believe the cache needs to be archived.
  
• SBA Logs aren't going to necessarily be the end of a cache, and are certainly not the end of the world.
  
• SBA logs are good because if a landowner were to look at the cache page they would have written evidence that something is being done with the cache on their property.
  
• SBA logs alert other cachers that there may be an issue with hunting the cache.
  
• SBA is actually a misnomer. The actual phrase used on the cache page is "Needs Archived." NA?
  

[CoyoteRed]

Do the right thing and contact the cache owner first.

As soon as a log is written an email is sent off to the owner. That's contact....

That's a log. Contact means communications.

 

Either cache owners are resonsbile or someone else is. Who's the someone else? This site? Will any reviewer with a brain step forward and take responsiblity for my cache? I doubt it.

 

Too many people are in line to work around the one person who is responsible for the cache. The rule for real life and caching is to work with the person responsible. There is always an exception, there is a time when if that fails you kick things up a notch. However when it comes to caches most folks are in line to make the exception the rule.

 

The steps I outlined in my first post in this thread would work. They would make the rangers happy and they would make the cache owner happy. Win Win. That's not broken.

You're confusing responsibilities. The owner is responsible for the cache. This site is responsible for the listing.

 

By logging an SBA, the finder is letting this site know there is a problem. This site then gets with the cache owner to work it out. If nothing can be worked out then the listing is archived. None of that entails anything directly dealing with the removal of cache. If the situation becomes removal of the cache to satisfy the land owners then so be it. It is still the responsibility of the cache owner to remove the cache, not this site.

 

This site is responsible for the listings on this site. If a listing is brought to their attention that may be placed without the proper permission then they should look into it. If the cache proves to not be there with permission then they should archive the listing so other users of their site would go looking for the cache. They are not supposed to be telling folks to remove caches. Geo-trash excepted, of course.