Upset Landowner

[+Voodoo7]

I found a cache yesterday and an indivdual approached me claiming to be the land owner. I explained to him what Geocaching is and he didn't want to hear it. (King Muggle to say the least) He told me that he gave no one permission to "hide" anything on his property and he asked me to remove it so, I did. I have tried to contact the cache owner but I have not received a response and I see that the last time they were on was Jan. '07. It appears that they are out of the game. Do I just adopt the cache now? How long should I wait? Just wondering.

Edited June 4, 2008 by Voodoo7

[+sbell111]

I found a cache yesterday and an indivdual approached me claining to be the land owner. I explained to him Geocaching is and he didn't want to hear it. He told me that he gave no one permission to "hide" anything on his property and he asked me to remove it so, I did. I have tried to contact the cache owner but I have not received a response and I see that the last time they were on was Jan. '07. It appears that they are out of the game. Do I just adopt the cache now? How long should I wait? Just wondering.

I wouldn't try to adopt it. You'd only be adopting an angsty situation.

 

I think that this would be a good use for an SBA. If you knew that the person wasn't the land owner or were able to contact the owner, I would probably go in a different direction.

Edited June 4, 2008 by sbell111

[+Voodoo7]

Thanks for the advice. Will do!

[+briansnat]

You don't want to adopt an illegal cache. No point in that. Besides I don't think "hostile" adoptions are allowed any more. A Needs Archived is the way to go. Just mention in the log what happened and that the cache is gone, you have it and if the owner wants it he can contact you.

[+Voodoo7]

Thanks for the advise. I logged it as a SBA

[knowschad]

I found a cache yesterday and an indivdual approached me claiming to be the land owner. I explained to him what Geocaching is and he didn't want to hear it. (King Muggle to say the least) He told me that he gave no one permission to "hide" anything on his property and he asked me to remove it so, I did. I have tried to contact the cache owner but I have not received a response and I see that the last time they were on was Jan. '07. It appears that they are out of the game. Do I just adopt the cache now? How long should I wait? Just wondering.

 

I know of one cache in my area that has had a neighbor make similar claims, yet the cache has been proven to be well within park boundaries. However, I wouldn't want to go after a cache in that situation even if I had every legal right to be there. It just isn't fun.

[+Too Tall John]

If there is any question about land ownership, you can research that at your town office. It's public information, I believe.

 

As you did, I'd post a SBA regardless. A cache owner who hasn't logged on in over a year, an angry muggle that claims ownership of the land? Not to mention, the container is gone. Unless you feel comfortable putting it back, nobody will find that cache, and wouldn't know why without the SBA log.

 

Briansnat is absolutely right about not being able to adopt a cache without the owner's permission. Groundspeak has recently gone so far as to say that if a cacher dies, nobody can adopt those caches without prior written permission from the deceased. So, even if there is no chance that the cache owner will come back to question why someone else owns their cache, it isn't going to happen.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I have tried to contact the cache owner but I have not received a response and I see that the last time they were on was Jan. '07....

 

You pulled the cache. Good.

You contacted the cache owner. Good.

Reasonable? A month in my book. Others will feel differently.

Your current log should indicate the issue so others know what's up.

After a month use the SBA log and also let the reviewer know the steps you have taken and the time frame.

 

Then move on with life and caching.

That's what I'd do anyway.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I know of one cache in my area that has had a neighbor make similar claims, yet the cache has been proven to be well within park boundaries. However, I wouldn't want to go after a cache in that situation even if I had every legal right to be there. It just isn't fun.

This is why contacting the cache owne is the first step. They should have a better idea about the cache than the finder. It may be the cache is fine but the muggle is prone to lying. Hard to say so you give them a chance.

[Clan Riffster]

I found a cache yesterday and an indivdual approached me claiming to be the land owner.

Something you might try is going to your local property appraiser's website. Many counties offer searchable databases, including clickable/zoomable maps that link to every piece of real estate within their borders. That would tell you who owned the property. This data might prove useful to your reviewer in determining a course of action.

[+starscream2]

...I have tried to contact the cache owner but I have not received a response and I see that the last time they were on was Jan. '07....

 

You pulled the cache. Good.

You contacted the cache owner. Good.

Reasonable? A month in my book. Others will feel differently.

Your current log should indicate the issue so others know what's up.

After a month use the SBA log and also let the reviewer know the steps you have taken and the time frame.

 

Then move on with life and caching.

That's what I'd do anyway.

 

If you pulled the cache, wouldn't you log the SBA right away? Otherwise you are going to have people visiting that area looking for a missing cache. Not everyone is going to read the logs and know it is missing. I usually only look at the logs after I can't find something. There is no way to my knowledge for someone other than the owner to temporarily disable it.

 

If I was in the situation I would pull the cache, send the owner the details of what happened, immediately log the SBA (only because the cache has been pulled). Then the owner can deal with the situation. If they want to fight over whose land it really is and get it reactivated great. Say the muggle was lying, all the owner has to do it and prove the cache is on valid public land to the reviewer and get it turned back on.

 

There is a couple situations where like this where I wish there was something in between archive and maintance. Something like a request for the reviewer to temporarily disable the cache. Then you could temp disable it for a month, and give the owner longer to respond. But since that option doesn't exist, I think you have to SBA.

[+sbell111]

...I have tried to contact the cache owner but I have not received a response and I see that the last time they were on was Jan. '07....

You pulled the cache. Good.

You contacted the cache owner. Good.

Reasonable? A month in my book. Others will feel differently.

Your current log should indicate the issue so others know what's up.

After a month use the SBA log and also let the reviewer know the steps you have taken and the time frame.

 

Then move on with life and caching.

That's what I'd do anyway.

If you pulled the cache, wouldn't you log the SBA right away? Otherwise you are going to have people visiting that area looking for a missing cache. ...

An NM log would notify them of the issue.

[+Voodoo7]

Thanks again to all. As I stated, I pulled the cache and logged a SBA. It was reviewed and has been removed. This way no one will go out looking for something that's not there. Again, great advice from all.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If you pulled the cache, wouldn't you log the SBA right away?...

 

I'd log right of way, but I have no way to know the cache isn't viable. All I know is that someone claiming to be the land onwner is annoyed. Thus I'd log the problem in my normal log and try to contact the owner so they can fix the situation and I can get them their cache. The fix could be pulling the cache, picking up and replacing the container, or having a restraining order taken out on the muggle for interfering in a legitimate cache.

 

People who don't read logs or cache pages assume the risk that they may miss something.

[+J-Way]

Briansnat is absolutely right about not being able to adopt a cache without the owner's permission. Groundspeak has recently gone so far as to say that if a cacher dies, nobody can adopt those caches without prior written permission from the deceased. So, even if there is no chance that the cache owner will come back to question why someone else owns their cache, it isn't going to happen.

This is the first I've heard of this interesting development... Does this mean the owner of Mingo better put the cache in his/her Will, or else it gets archived upon death?? I guess someone could place a new cache in the same spot and list it under the same name, but that would be pointless because then finders wouldn't get credit for a year 2000 cache. Just sounds like a way to get rid of older caches, which will make the "Fizzy" challenges that much harder. Groundspeak's getting too "corporate".

 

Sorry for hijack attempt, back your regularly scheduled topic.

[GOF and Bacall]

I won't second guess the actions of a cacher that is "on the spot" in such a situation. You now what was happening there/then and used your best judgment. Having pulled the cache,and having an irate neighbor, whether right or wrong, I think you played it right. The cache owner didn't respond so the Needs Archive log is a good call. Just because you post that type of log does not mean that it will be archived immediately. The reviewer will get the notice that a problem exists and handle it from there. I think that log type needs to be renamed to something a bit less intimidating. Perhaps "Notify Groundspeak" or "Alert Reviewer" would be less problematic?

 

To the side topic - As I understand it the forced adoptions ended due to legal questions involving ownership. By letting cachers adopt a cache without prior owners consent Groundspeak was usurping the original owners rights. Another argument could be made that by transferring ownership of a cache Grounspeak is asserting that they have some rights to the title so to speak. If that was the case then they possibly could be held liable for any consequences arising from a cache placement. Easier to maintain a legal buffer if they say we don't own it so we can't transfer that ownership.

[+edscott]

I found a cache yesterday and an indivdual approached me claiming to be the land owner.

Something you might try is going to your local property appraiser's website. Many counties offer searchable databases, including clickable/zoomable maps that link to every piece of real estate within their borders. That would tell you who owned the property. This data might prove useful to your reviewer in determining a course of action.

 

Yes it would be interesting to see if the cache was really on private land. There is a family near here that claims ownership of, and posts, over 200 acres of a state park. It's in an out of the way area that never gets patrolled by the rangers. Most park visitors don't realize its public land so they have effectively established their own logging and hunting area. In another nearby area several landowners are posting large tracts of a city park and hassling anyone they see using the trails they have posted.

[+Mushroom finder]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the CO may very well have had legitimate permission when the cache was placed but that the land ownership has chanced since then. The cache owner may not even be aware that it has changed hands. As for not responding and not having logged in for a year, perhaps the CO is out of the country on military duty.

 

When property changes hands, disclosure of third party access is the most common thing to get over looked. I've been a hunter and outdoorsman my whole life and know of many situations where folks had hunting permission for years and then showed up one season to find that they were not were not welcome. No one told them they were losing access and no one told the new owners that others had access. When Ma & Pa Kettle go to sell the farm, remembering that they let someone stick a piece of tupperware out in the back 40 a few years ago somehow seems rather insignificant.

 

If the guy didn't own the land you have to wonder what interest he was trying to protect. Maybe he has an illegal growing operation back there, maybe he's just guy whose had permission to hunt there his whole life and was worried you would stumble across his honey hole and then lease the hunting rights out from under him (happens to folks all the time). In any event you did the right thing. You certainly wouldn't want to knowingly let others walk into a hostile situation. KUDOS to you for thinking of other people's safety and for not leaving it there to tarnish the geocaching image.

 

I know you can't technically adopt the cache, but if the CO never responds I'd say you certainly could adopt the tangible aspects IE: container and contents, give it a new name and log book and establish it eleswhere.

[+Voodoo7]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the CO isn't on military duty. It's been over a year and a half. And regardless of where he/she is deployed, they have internet access. There are Geocachers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can't speak for them all but I'd think they'd make contact if they could. Either way, I'll give it some time to see if they contact me.

[+LionsLair]

One thing you may want to do is contact the owner of the TB that is in the cache, and let them know you will pick it up and move it on. I also see that this cache has been used in several Delorme challenges and you may want to look into seeing if that will effect others trying to complete the challenge and you may want to find someplace nearby to put a cache.... it looks like the closest cache to it is several miles away.... I'm not real sure how that works in your area according to the grid maps for DC, something to look at though...

[Keystone]

Briansnat is absolutely right about not being able to adopt a cache without the owner's permission. Groundspeak has recently gone so far as to say that if a cacher dies, nobody can adopt those caches without prior written permission from the deceased. So, even if there is no chance that the cache owner will come back to question why someone else owns their cache, it isn't going to happen.

This is the first I've heard of this interesting development... Does this mean the owner of Mingo better put the cache in his/her Will, or else it gets archived upon death?? I guess someone could place a new cache in the same spot and list it under the same name, but that would be pointless because then finders wouldn't get credit for a year 2000 cache. Just sounds like a way to get rid of older caches, which will make the "Fizzy" challenges that much harder. Groundspeak's getting too "corporate".

 

Sorry for hijack attempt, back your regularly scheduled topic.

Obviously Groundspeak wouldn't be expecting the deceased geocacher to speak through their will or from the spirit world. Instructions would come from the geocacher's surviving family members. I have, unfortunately, worked through several of these situations.

 

End of hijack.

[Keystone]

On topic, I think the OP did the right thing by logging a "Needs Archived" right away, because the cache had, in fact, been removed.

 

When I'm summoned to a cache page by a "Needs Archived" log, I have a full range of options available. I can archive the cache immediately. I can disable the listing and give the owner time to fix the problem (that's my most common response). I can sit back and wait for the owner to respond, and then follow up later if there's been no answer. Or, I can do nothing. A lot of "Needs Archived" logs don't result in a cache being archived. I had one today which was obviously a newbie's mistaken attempt to log a find on their first cache. This is quite common. You have to ignore the "found it" option, and click through an "are you sure?" message, but it happens a lot.

[+PhxChem]

Briansnat is absolutely right about not being able to adopt a cache without the owner's permission. Groundspeak has recently gone so far as to say that if a cacher dies, nobody can adopt those caches without prior written permission from the deceased. So, even if there is no chance that the cache owner will come back to question why someone else owns their cache, it isn't going to happen.

I guess someone could place a new cache in the same spot and list it under the same name, but that would be pointless because then finders wouldn't get credit for a year 2000 cache. Just sounds like a way to get rid of older caches, which will make the "Fizzy" challenges that much harder. Groundspeak's getting too "corporate".

 

Sorry for hijack attempt, back your regularly scheduled topic.

 

Do you really think that Groundspeak instituted that policy to "get rid" of older caches? What purpose would that serve?

 

Corporations tend to be corporate...with all that legal liability and such....

 

 

The OP seems to have done the right thing. Or, one of the possible right things.