Do you hunt for caches on private land?

[+ibycus]

A post in the "take your first find seriously" thread got me wondering.

 

There was a link to a new cache (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4ad4e363-4869-4a79-a787-e8313c7ba3fe), placed by a new cacher, that multiple finders commented was on private land, but here's the kicker... They went after the cache anyways.

 

I've had similar experiences with one of my own caches where a fence with "No Entry" was put up all of a sudden (was public land that had become a protected area). People will brazenly defy private property notices, or "Do not enter" on the grounds that "There's a cache there". I had to hop the fence myself to retrieve the cache to stop people going after it.

 

Yes, there is the responsibility of the hider to get permission, but do you assume that permission has been granted when the hider hasn't mentioned it?

 

I've run in to these myself, and my response was to drive home, and e-mail the hider and ask them to make sure I was in the right place. I wouldn't even have thought of just ignoring the posting (in this particular case, everything was AOK, but I wasn't about to go tromping around on private property just because my GPS told me to).

 

OK I'm done ranting, and my class is about to start.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Yes, there is the responsibility of the hider to get permission, but do you assume that permission has been granted when the hider hasn't mentioned it? ...

 

I hunt for caches in areas of public accomodation. If I'm not in an area like that I'll assume I have a blown coordinate, or some other problem with the cache and I'll take another look at the cache page or check my coordinates. 99.5% of the time though the cache is fine. Even the ones where I have bumped into an issue was in an area of public accomodation and the issue was proximity.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

Anytime there's a fence or a sign... I'm done.

 

DCC

[+sbell111]

It depends.

[+softball29]

If it seems like it's on private property, I stay away. I'm not getting yelled at, shot at (some of the caches in my area are really out in the sticks!) or arrested to grab a cache. If there's permission and it's on the page, I'll usually then go after it.

[+baloo&bd]

No. With or without mention of permission.

Edited April 14, 2008 by baloo&bd

[+StarBrand]

I'll side with RK on this. Areas of Public Accomodation - I've no problems with a search as the public tends to crawl all over it anyway.

 

Behind a fence or past a posted sign - never!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Two checkboxes at the bottom of the listing submission page assure the Reviewer that adequate permission has been obtained. Based on that promise by the owner the cache gets listed.

 

That's good enough for me. If it is listed I assume adequate permission.

 

When I am accosted at a cache and told that there is in fact no permission I ask for permission for it to remain, if that fails I post a Should Be Archived note... let the cache owner explain to the Reviewer why that happened!

[+carleenp]

If it looks like private land that is not open to the public as a whole and the cache page says nothing about it being OK to wander around there, I skip it.

 

Heck, sometimes even when the cache page clearly says permission was granted I still skip it, especially with things like caches in residential areas. Wandering around private property makes me uncomfortable. I would rather just pass on those caches.

Edited April 14, 2008 by carleenp

[+briansnat]

If there are no trespassing signs I turn around. That is unless I know for a fact that the signs are not valid (many parks in this area still have no trespassing signs dating to when the land was privately owned).

 

Two checkboxes at the bottom of the listing submission page assure the Reviewer that adequate permission has been obtained. Based on that promise by the owner the cache gets listed.

 

That's good enough for me. If it is listed I assume adequate permission.

 

Not for me. I don't look good in stripes.

Edited April 14, 2008 by briansnat

[+nekom]

I absolutely will not cross into a posted area. Being chased by a farmer with a shotgun is not my idea of an enjoyable cache hunt. In my recollection though, I have never came across a cache in such a place.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If it looks like private land that is not open to the public as a whole and the cache page says nothing about it being OK to wander around there, I skip it.

 

Heck, sometimes even when the cache page clearly says permission was granted I still skip it, especially with things like caches in residential areas. Wandering around private property makes me uncomfortable. I would rather just pass on those caches.

Some folks are indeed hesitant to cache on private land, even when permission is clearly given on the cache listing. That's cool... each to their own. right?

 

No one ever got in trouble for NOT hunting a cache that made them uncomfortable!

 

I have a TB Hotel on my front porch, Irondale Pit Stop. On the listing page I give the coordinates, my address, my phone number and a hint that says "below the 1522 house number".

 

Most folks take that as adequate permission, but even with that some are uncomfortable.

 

I can't say how many have skipped it and not said anything about it, of course, but there have been only one or maybe two who posted something along the lines of "this makes me uncomfortable". I don't think any have skipped logging it, however, uncomfortable as they may have been!

 

I did alert my neighbors so that they would know that strangers might be seen at all hours wandering my front yard (you can see the huge .50 cal. ammo can from the street) and that did pay off in one situation; I got a call from a single mom who said that she and her two kids had spent 15 minutes searching my porch and couldn't find it - could it be behind the white cabinet? When I could stop laughing I told her the white cabinet is on my neighbor's porch!

 

One of my hides, unfortunately now archived due to repeated mugglings, was 10' past a No Trespassing sign on a well-used path across a creekbed behind a local ball park. Residents of the surrounding neighborhood used the path to walk to the ball park. I had permission from the city groundskeeper and the Chief of Police told his force that people could go there (which info was on the listing). Out of 100+ finders only one complained about having to pass the sign (but he did it anyway!).

 

Of the several thousand caches that I have found in 27 states maybe 12 times I have been told it did not have permission. About half of those times I was able to get permission for it to stay.

 

Still, I did encounter one the other day at a defunct Circuit City, the cache was in the garden strip along the property edge. The property manager and a police car were about 40' from the cache filling out a report. I parked, walked over and introduced myself and told them that we would be looking for a geocache right over there, don't mind us. The cache had just been placed the day before and found once. The policeman told us he had already gotten a call about prowlers, and the property manager said that even though the store was empty and for rent they were liable for accidents, and no the cache owner had not sought permission nor could any be given. It turns out that the report they were filling out was for the theft of a rooftop air conditioner and some copper pipe the night the cache was hidden! Yikes! I know the cache owner, he is a friend, has been for years... no matter, I went home and filed an SBA. There is no reason to take cachers onto private property without permission! (yes, my friend the cache owner was pissed, but he'll get over it, and I bet next time he'll more closely consider the risk to cache hunters!)

 

When I was Naturefish, the Reviewer for Arkansas a couple of years ago, one of 'my' cachers there did get arrested for trespassing while hunting a cache hidden between a store and a gas station that had been placed on private property without permission. He was handcuffed and taken to jail, his wife had to follow them and bond him out, and in court he was given a one-year suspended sentence and told not to geocache during that year!

 

Based on those experiences trespass and permission is not a huge problem... but it is a consideration!

[+ibycus]

Two checkboxes at the bottom of the listing submission page assure the Reviewer that adequate permission has been obtained. Based on that promise by the owner the cache gets listed.

 

That's good enough for me. If it is listed I assume adequate permission.

 

 

This obviously misses the point I brought up earlier. What happens when the circumstances around the cache change? (i.e. a new ecological reserve is established). At the time of placement, there was no problem.

 

You show up, see a fence with a "No Entry" sign, and "assume" permission was granted, and hop the fence?

 

Its equally possible that a property owner might get annoyed with the constant parade of trespassers on his/her property and decide to post a "no trespassing" sign where before it was assumed (incorrectly) by the cache owner that this was public land.

[+Renegade Knight]

Two checkboxes at the bottom of the listing submission page assure the Reviewer that adequate permission has been obtained. Based on that promise by the owner the cache gets listed.

 

That's good enough for me. If it is listed I assume adequate permission.

 

 

This obviously misses the point I brought up earlier. What happens when the circumstances around the cache change? (i.e. a new ecological reserve is established). At the time of placement, there was no problem.

 

You show up, see a fence with a "No Entry" sign, and "assume" permission was granted, and hop the fence?...

 

Nothing much changes. You see something is up that you didn't expect, cross check your coords, email the owner and ask if that was the spot. Things get looked into and the cache will be fixed. If you were willing to hop the fence and ignore the junkyard dog warning along with the high voltage signs, you should not be suprises if your shocked personage and dog bitten butt is hauled off for a visit to the judge.

[+ibycus]

This obviously misses the point I brought up earlier. What happens when the circumstances around the cache change? (i.e. a new ecological reserve is established). At the time of placement, there was no problem.

 

You show up, see a fence with a "No Entry" sign, and "assume" permission was granted, and hop the fence?...

 

Nothing much changes. You see something is up that you didn't expect, cross check your coords, email the owner and ask if that was the spot. Things get looked into and the cache will be fixed. If you were willing to hop the fence and ignore the junkyard dog warning along with the high voltage signs, you should not be suprises if your shocked personage and dog bitten butt is hauled off for a visit to the judge.

 

This is exactly my point. Assumptions are dangerous things.

[+sbell111]

Nothing much changes. You see something is up that you didn't expect, cross check your coords, email the owner and ask if that was the spot. Things get looked into and the cache will be fixed. If you were willing to hop the fence and ignore the junkyard dog warning along with the high voltage signs, you should not be suprises if your shocked personage and dog bitten butt is hauled off for a visit to the judge.

 

This is exactly my point. Assumptions are dangerous things.

Which is why your original question is not answerable with a simple 'yes' or more likely based on your agenda, 'no'.

Edited April 14, 2008 by sbell111

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Two checkboxes at the bottom of the listing submission page assure the Reviewer that adequate permission has been obtained. Based on that promise by the owner the cache gets listed.

 

That's good enough for me. If it is listed I assume adequate permission.

 

 

This obviously misses the point I brought up earlier. What happens when the circumstances around the cache change? (i.e. a new ecological reserve is established). At the time of placement, there was no problem.

 

You show up, see a fence with a "No Entry" sign, and "assume" permission was granted, and hop the fence?...

 

Nothing much changes. You see something is up that you didn't expect, cross check your coords, email the owner and ask if that was the spot. Things get looked into and the cache will be fixed. If you were willing to hop the fence and ignore the junkyard dog warning along with the high voltage signs, you should not be suprises if your shocked personage and dog bitten butt is hauled off for a visit to the judge.

Well, ditto, to a point. Yes, things change and no cache is guaranteed to live forever. It is the cache owner's responsibility to check on the cache periodically. The cache owner should KNOW what is going on at his cache site.

 

On rare occassions things will change before the owner notices, but he/she should respond appropriately as soon as such issues are brought to his/her (I hate being PC!) attention, be it through self-motivated checking on caches, a call from the land-owner (all caches should have owner contact info prominantly at the top of the log - my name and phone phone number along with a request to contact me if there is a problem is on all of mine) or a log from a geocacher.

 

As far as jumping a fence, I would assume that I was in the wrong place! If jumping a fence is indeed required I would post an SBA and let the owner explain his permission or lack thereof to his Reviewer!

[+Renegade Knight]

...This is exactly my point. Assumptions are dangerous things.

 

I did a cache. Two ways in were wrong and well marked, fenced, and signed. At one point I stopped while opening a gate (gate does not always mean don't enter so much as cows should not get out and they are often used on public land for that purpose) and picked up a sign that had been laying face down on the ground. "If you can read this you have been trespassing for some time". Whoops, looks like this gate was for both cows and people. I left. Tried a hike from another spot and hit signs. Then I finally caught a clue and came in from yet another direction. No problem. No fences, no signs. Assuming the cache had a permission issue would be as bad as assuming that I had permission to go in via the wrong way that I had found the first time.

[+XopherN71]

Do I?

 

I guess I don't know half the time if I'm on public or private property

 

So yeah, if that's where it tells me the cache is - that's where I go.

[+Mule Ears]

Here in the rural west, there are many cases in which a No Trespassing sign (NTS) is not a show stopper. For example, on a 4WD road, an NTS that's not affixed to a gate generally means that you may drive on, but may not leave your vehicle and set out cross-country. Most fences are meant to keep cattle in, not to keep humans out. An NTS near an old mine does not usually refer to the surrounding land, just to the mine works themselves (dangerous places). And you'll sometimes encounter an NTS that is clearly a bluff--someone other than the landowner trying to keep people out of a favorite hunting or rockhounding spot.

 

Cache owners out here are pretty good about documenting these inapplicable signs, but sometimes they forget. In broaching the subject with the owner, it's a good idea to reserve judgment until you have the facts.

 

None of this applies to caches in town, areas surrounded by chainlink fences (as opposed to barbed wire), locked gates, areas near residences, etc. I won't knowingly trespass on private property to hunt for a cache, and I'm squeamish about the gray-area issue of hunting for caches on semi-private property (easements close to houses, parking lots, etc.).

[Mushtang]

Two checkboxes at the bottom of the listing submission page assure the Reviewer that adequate permission has been obtained. Based on that promise by the owner the cache gets listed.

 

That's good enough for me. If it is listed I assume adequate permission.

 

 

This obviously misses the point I brought up earlier. What happens when the circumstances around the cache change? (i.e. a new ecological reserve is established). At the time of placement, there was no problem.

 

You show up, see a fence with a "No Entry" sign, and "assume" permission was granted, and hop the fence?

 

Its equally possible that a property owner might get annoyed with the constant parade of trespassers on his/her property and decide to post a "no trespassing" sign where before it was assumed (incorrectly) by the cache owner that this was public land.

Yes, I'd also assume adequate permission was obtained and hunt for it. If circumstances changed and permission was no longer valid, then a cacher getting involved with the owner would hopefully report the new status and the cache could be removed/moved.

 

If the owner (or his representative) came up and told me I was trespassing and wanted me to leave, I'd leave.

 

In the one case this has ever happened I actually did see the No Trespassing signs but they weren't clear as to what area was off limits, and I assumed the owner either placed it out of the NT zone or he'd gotten permission. After finding it I was on my way out when I was approached and told I was on private property.

 

Since I'd already found it I was leaving anyway, and wasn't too upset. I mentioned the incident in a log and the owner pretty much told me to go fly a kite, he didn't care. That was the wrong answer, but I'd done my part and reported it. I figured after getting several more complaints he'd get the point.

[+ThePetersTrio]

In the one case this has ever happened I actually did see the No Trespassing signs but they weren't clear as to what area was off limits, and I assumed the owner either placed it out of the NT zone or he'd gotten permission. After finding it I was on my way out when I was approached and told I was on private property.

 

Since I'd already found it I was leaving anyway, and wasn't too upset. I mentioned the incident in a log and the owner pretty much told me to go fly a kite, he didn't care. That was the wrong answer, but I'd done my part and reported it. I figured after getting several more complaints he'd get the point.

 

Now see that really bothers me! (Not what you did - you did the exact right thing.) The cache owner should not be allowed to put me or my family at risk of arrest or assault because they didn't wish to move or archive their cache! Couldn't this be reported to your local reviewer?

 

It just sounds dangerous to me.

[+sbell111]

In the one case this has ever happened I actually did see the No Trespassing signs but they weren't clear as to what area was off limits, and I assumed the owner either placed it out of the NT zone or he'd gotten permission. After finding it I was on my way out when I was approached and told I was on private property.

 

Since I'd already found it I was leaving anyway, and wasn't too upset. I mentioned the incident in a log and the owner pretty much told me to go fly a kite, he didn't care. That was the wrong answer, but I'd done my part and reported it. I figured after getting several more complaints he'd get the point.

 

Now see that really bothers me! (Not what you did - you did the exact right thing.) The cache owner should not be allowed to put me or my family at risk of arrest or assault because they didn't wish to move or archive their cache! Couldn't this be reported to your local reviewer?

 

It just sounds dangerous to me.

When Mushtang chose to pass the sign, he made a decision to accept the consequences. I assume that you would not have made the same decision and would have led your family back to the car. If not, the arrest/assault is on you.

[Mushtang]

In the one case this has ever happened I actually did see the No Trespassing signs but they weren't clear as to what area was off limits, and I assumed the owner either placed it out of the NT zone or he'd gotten permission. After finding it I was on my way out when I was approached and told I was on private property.

 

Since I'd already found it I was leaving anyway, and wasn't too upset. I mentioned the incident in a log and the owner pretty much told me to go fly a kite, he didn't care. That was the wrong answer, but I'd done my part and reported it. I figured after getting several more complaints he'd get the point.

 

Now see that really bothers me! (Not what you did - you did the exact right thing.) The cache owner should not be allowed to put me or my family at risk of arrest or assault because they didn't wish to move or archive their cache! Couldn't this be reported to your local reviewer?

 

It just sounds dangerous to me.

When Mushtang chose to pass the sign, he made a decision to accept the consequences. I assume that you would not have made the same decision and would have led your family back to the car. If not, the arrest/assault is on you.

True. When I couldn't figure out, because of the odd placement of the signs, what the No Trespassing area was supposed to be, I assumed the hider knew what he was doing.

 

At the time of the rebuttal by the owner I decided that I could either 1) let it go and more similar comments would follow, or 2) be a cache cop and report it. I chose to let it go. I concede that the person telling me I was on No Trespassing land could have been the one who was mistaken, and if so future finders might not have had any problems. If future cachers did have issues, it would probably come to light anyway.

[+TeamGumbo]

do you assume that permission has been granted when the hider hasn't mentioned it?

 

Nope.

[+DanOCan]

I tend to skip them. My most recent experience was a nano cache which is located on the front lawn of an apartment building just steps from someone's window. Permission or not, I don't need that kind of caching experience.

[Clan Riffster]

I guess the best answer I can give would be, "It depends".

I have probably hunted caches on privately owned parcels of land. I drive to a spot, see a patch of woods with no indications that folks shouldn't enter, and I'd probably follow my little arrow. However, if something gave me pause, (a squirrelly feeling), or if there was some overt indicator that the land was private, (gates, fences, signs, etc), and permission wasn't mentioned on the cache page, I'd drive on to the next one.

[+flask]

i have a lot of caches on private property. they're there with permission.

 

...but on of the properties changed hands recently without my knowledge. i got an email from the new owner, who was interested to learn she had acquired a geocache.

 

she let it stay.

 

in the case of obvious caches (middle of somebody's yard) i assume permission.

 

middle of nowhere, beyond no trespassing signs?

 

nope.

[+ibycus]

I guess the best answer I can give would be, "It depends".

I have probably hunted caches on privately owned parcels of land. I drive to a spot, see a patch of woods with no indications that folks shouldn't enter, and I'd probably follow my little arrow. However, if something gave me pause, (a squirrelly feeling), or if there was some overt indicator that the land was private, (gates, fences, signs, etc), and permission wasn't mentioned on the cache page, I'd drive on to the next one.

 

This is pretty much my own rule. If I don't know its not public property (and have no indication otherwise), then I really have no problem following the arrow.

 

Appropriate annecdote:

 

I recall some time ago I was out caching, looking for the final of a puzzle cache. I'd confirmed coordinates with the owner, so I was positive I was in the right place, and it was an old cache, so I was comfortable with the permission issue. I got close enough to the cache site without doing anything untowards to be confident of where the cache was located... on the far side of a fence.

 

Anyways, as I was pretty much positive where the cache was, and that it wasn't on private land, I figured it must be a wildlife fence, so I hopped the fence and continued to the cache site. On my way out, I came across a sign along the fence...no trespassing.... unfortunately it was directed towards the area in which my car was parked! I'd actually hopped the fence to get out of the private property, rather than in to it. Never did find a sign on the road I came in on though.