The archiving of Slukster's Climbin' & Findin' Caches . . .

[+GerIRL]

I was very upset to see yesterday's sudden archiving of 5 of Slukster's series of 7 "Climbin' & Findin'" caches for requiring "illegal rock climbing in County Parks". The series was extremely well prepared and laid out. The verbage on each cache page is very clear that these caches are dangerous and not for the timid. Thanks to the excellent coordinates, at each GZ the cacher can plainly see the container and then make an informed decision whether to continue to attempt the find, OR NOT. None of the logged comments regarding the risk involved state anything that the CO hadn't already included in the description. As to the legality of the caches from a climbing point of view, of the 5 that were archived (#'s 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7) 2, 3 and 5 were retrievable from the top of the ledge and did not entail any significant descent. 4 & 7 only required climbing about 6' up from the bottom of the slope, about 3 "steps" or manouveres, to allow retrieval of the 11' or 12' high cache. I did all of the caches in a slow, deliberate manner without any ropes. I felt the same euphoria after each find that I feel after solving and finding a well crafted puzzle cache.

 

I have no idea who contacted Pofe triggering the archive action. I am sure that it wasn't anyone who found any of the caches because nobody would be hypocritical enough to log a find with "TFTC" or "Thanks for the cache" and then request that it be archived. So I assume it was somebody who didn't find any of them, but checked them (all) out. My two cents worth would be that if one comes across a cache that is not to their liking, it might be more appropriate to add it to their "Ignore List" rather than summarily request it be archived, at the expense of those of us who appreciate an occasional challenge beyond the typical 1.5/1.5. Okay then - that thump you just heard was me jumping down off of my soap box!

[polskikrol]

Completely agree with GerIRLs sentiment. The risk of retrieving these caches was well advertised and the caches where all visible from a safe vantage point allowing one to 'choose' whether to attempt them. 'Climbing' would be a long shot at describing these caches as they could also be technically retrieved without rope. The CO even placed these without using rope!

 

I am pretty certain the definition of "No Climbing" refers to the art of using rope and a harness. However, it would appear that rock climbing here is performed by non-geocachers. Please see the following link: Garrett Mountain Rock Climbing. Nevertheless, I have submitted an inquiry via email with the Passaic County Parks Department to verify whether climbing is or is not allowed at Garrett Mountain.

[marikun]

My sentiments as well. I noticed they'd been archived earlier today when I looked at the cache map of Garrett Mountain and they were. I'm proud to say that I nabbed three of them before TPTB (of the non-Geocaching world) took them down. I'm sad to see them go as not only did I want to complete the series but they are a real rush and great caches overall.

 

polskikrol, i'm sending you some good vibes to getting the info. I'd hate to see these gone permanently!

[+ThirstyMick]

I couldn't agree more. I thoroughly enjoyed all of his hides and am sad to see them go, I was looking forward to his future hides. His cache pages gave fair warning, and the terrain ratings accurately reflected the difficulty. There's no rule that every cacher must find every cache, that's what the ignore list is for. Some of us like a challenge.

 

A quick google search didn't turn up any lists of rules and regulations, I'll have to inquire with the county.

Edited December 7, 2008 by ThirstyMick

[+Packanack]

I too haven't found any rules for Passaic County Parks, I know there are rules for High Mountain Reservation dealing with rock climbing. If there are in fact rules that is one story and the debate is over, but I hope we aren't getting to the point where someone thinks his judgment should be substituted for the judgment of the searcher, because it we get to that point, we can't go hiking alone in the woods seeking a cache, or we can't go out in a canoe to seek a cache, or you can't ride you motorcycle or bicycle because of the danger. Risk assessment belongs to the individual and I say that knowing that I personally would probably not do any of the caches. But I know that I will go hiking alone in the woods, I will go out in a kayak in search of caches, I will ride two wheels until I can't anymore.

[+briansnat]

I know there is (or was) a "no bouldering" rule in Morris County parks, but none of these caches were in Morris that I know of. Perhaps Passaic County has a similar rule? If so, then I guess it comes to the question of what exactly climbing and bouldering consist of. Probably a quarter of the caches in the NJ Highlands require some sort of climb.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Perhaps the hype on the cache page did not help:

I hadn't looked at the ones in Garrett Mountain yet. (And I can well imagine why Garrett Mountain would prohibit rock climbing.) But the one I did in Mills Reservation was no worse than climbing a flight of stairs.)

It probably depends on the Passaic County Parks Department definition of 'rock climbing'. It sounds as though no ropes or gear were required at any of these caches.

Definite over-reaction on someone's part.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

I doubt I would ever get to do any of these, but it is sad to see them go. There should be a variety of caches out there for all skill levels, etc. Just like it would not be fair to some interested in the game for all caches to be level 5 rock climbing thrills, it is equally unfair for them all to be easy 1.5 level walks. To me the best part of caching is to dis over trails, parks, views, rock formations, etc. that were it not for a cache being listed there one may not ever know about and for some, perhaps many, that can be a new physical challenge. Good luck!

[+nikcap]

It's always curious to see cache getting archived in this manner. Especially when information leading up to the decision is less then helpful to the community.

I agree with HD that the hype on the cache page probably didn't help the situation, as it could defiantly give the wrong impression on what type of equipment might be needed to complete these caches.

I have to agree with GerIRL on one point: There a more then a fair share of cachers around the will gladly take the smilie and then request a cache be archived. I can think of quit a few case in the last few years where this is true.

Regardless, that's not the point.

The issue can be easily resolved by the CO working with the parks department and re-writing the cache pages to make the cache acceptable.

[+briansnat]

I doubt I would ever get to do any of these, but it is sad to see them go. There should be a variety of caches out there for all skill levels, etc. Just like it would not be fair to some interested in the game for all caches to be level 5 rock climbing thrills, it is equally unfair for them all to be easy 1.5 level walks. To me the best part of caching is to dis over trails, parks, views, rock formations, etc. that were it not for a cache being listed there one may not ever know about and for some, perhaps many, that can be a new physical challenge. Good luck!

 

It wasn't a question of difficulty, it's a question of legality. If climbing is indeed illegal in these parks and these require climbing then there is no way to defend them. Caches that encourage lawbreaking can only give our sport a black eye and put the entire sport at riskin the long term.

 

If it turns out that there are no legal issues, then great. It's not like the caches were blown up and can't be re-listed.

[+MountainRacer]

It wasn't a question of difficulty, it's a question of legality. If climbing is indeed illegal in these parks and these require climbing then there is no way to defend them. Caches that encourage lawbreaking can only give our sport a black eye and put the entire sport at risking the long term.

 

If it turns out that there are no legal issues, then great. It's not like the caches were blown up and can't be re-listed.

Came here to say this. I'm sure the caches weren't archived by someone being a busybody and deciding that the general public couldn't be trusted with decisions pertaining to their own safety. The archive note from Pofe said:

"It has been brought to my attention that rock climbing is not allowed in this park. - anyone caught will be arrested by the County Park Police."

That tells me that someone looked it up and sent Pofe a picture or link to that end, and I have to say that as much as I like rock climbing, it's not worth having cachers taken away in cuffs over.

[+Team Catahoula]

We were glad to have done all of these. Even hit # 400 at one of them. Though a little hair-raising at times. Sad to see them go!

[+mblatch]

I couldn't agree more. Was an attempt even made to contact the cache owner to see about disabling or revising the pages before they were summarily archived? I did 4 of the 7 on Saturday morning (including 2 that had been archived) and didn't find any of them to be particularly difficult. I can't comment on the ones at Garrett Mountain as I haven't done them yet. Of the ones I did, the only one that involved anything that I would classify as climbing was #7...and even that wasn't all that much. I do agree that maybe the CO should revise the pages to more accurately reflect they type of terrain that will be encountered instead of making it look like you will have to conquer El Capitan to find the cache. haha

 

I looked at all of the signs at the parks, and searched online, but I didn't see anything that would indicate that these would be illegal. That being said, if it is determined that there are rules in place, then unfortunately, as much as we like them, we have no choice but to leave them archived. If the hides are acceptable, I hope the reviewers are just as swift in reactivating them.

[+ThirstyMick]

I was able to find a list of rules for Essex county parks (where Eagle Rock is)

 

http://www.essex-countynj.org/Park_Rules.pdf

 

Nothing about climbing.

Edited December 8, 2008 by ThirstyMick

[polskikrol]

"It has been brought to my attention that rock climbing is not allowed in this park. - anyone caught will be arrested by the County Park Police."

That tells me that someone looked it up and sent Pofe a picture or link to that end, and I have to say that as much as I like rock climbing, it's not worth having cachers taken away in cuffs over.

 

This is interesting, the same note was provided by Pofe in archiving all of the following slukster caches:

 

Hudson County

 

Climbin' & Findin' Cache 7 (GC1J5ZZ) (Laurel Hill Park)

 

Essex County

 

Climbin' & Findin' Cache 5 (GC1H22H) (Eagle Rock Reservation)

 

Passaic County

 

Climbin' & Findin' Cache 2 (GC1GDAM) (Garret Mountain Park)

Climbin' & Findin' Cache 3 (GC1GZZQ) (Garret Mountain Park)

Climbin' & Findin' Cache 4 (GC1H21G) (Garret Mountain Park)

 

Notice, these caches are in 3 different counties! Do the county police have jurisdiction in another counties parks? My point is, did the individual reporting that these caches should be archived inquire with all 3 county park commissions or do they merely have a personal vendetta?

Edited December 8, 2008 by polskikrol

[marikun]

Notice, these caches are in 3 different counties! Do the county police have jurisdiction in another counties parks? My point is, did the individual reporting that these caches should be archived inquire with all 3 county park commissions or do they merely have a personal vendetta?

 

Add to that that slukster's original Climbin' and Findin' Cache in Mills Resevation wasn't archived at all.

 

Edited December 8, 2008 by marikun

[+slukster]

I am happy to hear that many have enjoyed my Climbin' & Findin' cache series. I was shocked and dissappointed to see they were archived. As Harry the Dolphin pointed out, my pics exaggerating what the cache experience would be like definately did not help me. I definately think this one helped sink them:

Climbin'&Findin'5

Didn't they see the frog with his tongue sticking out meaning it was only a joke. LOL I am going to contact the local cache approver and plead my case. I will give him a better description of the caches and I will ask him if I change the name and definately change the pics will he unarchive them. The pics definately killed them since the 6th in the series (Another Secaucus Panorama) wasn't archived and only had a picture of a garbage dump. And the first one had a cartoon of a mountain climber so they didn't take it seriously? Maybe if I put photos like these in my cache descriptions I wouldn't have any problems:

I always enjoy putting the cache description together and I guess I will have to tone back my sense of humor a bit. No more joking about "While you don't have to be a professional rock climber to access this cache" and "if you lose your footing and fall down, it may be the last time you go caching"

I respect the judgement of the cache approvers and understand they have to respond immediately to any complaints about breaking the rules. I might be down but I am not out. The 8th in the series is coming up soon but will be named "This is not a rock climbing cache #1" Thanks again for your support.

 

-Bill (slukster)

Edited December 8, 2008 by slukster

[+weathernowcast]

I am happy to hear that many have enjoyed my Climbin' & Findin' cache series. I was shocked and dissappointed to see they were archived. As Harry the Dolphin pointed out, my pics exaggerating what the cache experience would be like definately did not help me. I definately think this one helped sink them:

Climbin'&Findin'5

Didn't they see the frog with his tongue sticking out meaning it was only a joke. LOL I am going to contact the local cache approver and plead my case. I will give him a better description of the caches and I will ask him if I change the name and definately change the pics will he unarchive them. The pics definately killed them since the 6th in the series (Another Secaucus Panorama) wasn't archived and only had a picture of a garbage dump. And the first one had a cartoon of a mountain climber so they didn't take it seriously? Maybe if I put photos like these in my cache descriptions I wouldn't have any problems:

I always enjoy putting the cache description together and I guess I will have to tone back my sense of humor a bit. No more joking about "While you don't have to be a professional rock climber to access this cache" and "if you lose your footing and fall down, it may be the last time you go caching"

I respect the judgement of the cache approvers and understand they have to respond immediately to any complaints about breaking the rules. I might be down but I am not out. The 8th in the series is coming up soon but will be named "This is not a rock climbing cache #1" Thanks again for your support.

 

-Bill (slukster)

 

I enjoyed your caches in Brookdale this weekend (those trees are perfect for climbing!) and I look forward to your "This is not a rock climbing cache#1"

 

Find out why they did it here?

Edited December 8, 2008 by weathernowcast

[+Packanack]

Seriously, has anyone been able to find any rules or regulations for Passaic County Parks. I spent some time googling and have come up with nothing. So I question the entire premise. I found very specific reference to rock climbing and caving at High Mtn, Wayne, being prohibited and very interestingly I found that Mountain Biking is permitted at High Mountain, something I never knew.

 

Passaic County has a very small parks department, there were very few parks until a few years ago. They had Weasel Brook and Rifle Camp and Garret Mtn. They now have a few more, Friendship, San Cap and Tranquility Ridge, but beyond that they don't have many others and I suspect that they never passed any kind of rules for park use.

 

I also did not find anything for Hudson County Parks. Has anyone else found anything ?

[+ThirstyMick]

Nothing for Passaic or Hudson; just Essex. I did find some rules for Passaic about aquiring new parkland, but nothing about park rules. George sent the Passaic County Parks people and email inquiring, but I don't think he's heard back yet. In my memory I can picture a big sign by the entrance of Garrett, I'm thinking about driving by later.

[+weathernowcast]

Nothing for Passaic or Hudson; just Essex. I did find some rules for Passaic about aquiring new parkland, but nothing about park rules. George sent the Passaic County Parks people and email inquiring, but I don't think he's heard back yet. In my memory I can picture a big sign by the entrance of Garrett, I'm thinking about driving by later.

 

I called Raymond J. Wright, Jr.- Director of Parks Passaic County. I will post the reponse here when they return my call.

[+briansnat]

Nothing for Passaic or Hudson; just Essex. I did find some rules for Passaic about aquiring new parkland, but nothing about park rules. George sent the Passaic County Parks people and email inquiring, but I don't think he's heard back yet. In my memory I can picture a big sign by the entrance of Garrett, I'm thinking about driving by later.

 

I called Raymond J. Wright, Jr.- Director of Parks Passaic County. I will post the reponse here when they return my call.

 

I'd also ask for their definition of rock climbing. I see a vast difference between using ropes, pitons and harnesses, or free climbing and just scrambling over boulders.

 

I have a suspicion that rock climbing isn't allowed because otherwise, Garret Mountain would be a mecca for climbers with its tall rock faces.

Edited December 8, 2008 by briansnat

[+weathernowcast]

Nothing for Passaic or Hudson; just Essex. I did find some rules for Passaic about aquiring new parkland, but nothing about park rules. George sent the Passaic County Parks people and email inquiring, but I don't think he's heard back yet. In my memory I can picture a big sign by the entrance of Garrett, I'm thinking about driving by later.

 

I called Raymond J. Wright, Jr.- Director of Parks Passaic County. I will post the reponse here when they return my call.

 

I'd also ask for their definition of rock climbing. I see a vast difference between using ropes, pitons and harnesses, or free climbing and just scrambling over boulders.

 

I have a suspicion that rock climbing isn't allowed because otherwise, Garret Mountain would be a mecca for climbers with its tall rock faces.

 

The person that called me back was not specific on exceptions to what was allowed. What they told me was that "rock climbing is not allowed on Garret Mountain." Feel free to call Mr. Wright above. I don;t know about the other counties.

[+slukster]

Yikes!! Now they archived my Caution! It's a Long Way Down. Definately no climing involved there. That is 6 caches archived so far. Man, I guess I will have to start just hiding 1/1 caches. I will be emailing Pfoe today for some clarification.

[+Packanack]

When he calls you back ask him where it is written down, as in a Code Book or Ordinance Book , cause I can not find anything like that anywhere. I checked the County Clerk on line resources and found nothing.

Passaic County does not have a big parks department as I have said before, I was told by one of the men working in Garret Mtn, that for the entire system outside the Golf Course they only have three people.

 

We do not have County Park Police in Passaic County, we have the Sheriff's Department. So be sure to ask the Sheriff Officer exactly where is the rule written down.

 

Not that the Sheriff Office would much care about where it is written down as he leads you off in handcuffs. He would probably say--Don't worry son we will figure that one out later.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Packanack

[+CondorTrax]

I completely agree with Gerry's remarks and am concerned that anyone would censor based on "It has come to my attention..." without some tangible proof or documented ordinance. I also spent some time searching the internet and found nothing

 

We are effectively a self approving group. Yes, the regional volunteer approvers have certain guidelines that must be adhered to, however, when we go after a cache it is our individual responsibility. We determine based on the information given, evaluate our own abilities (mental and/or physical), do some additional research and then go out and enjoy the day. If upon reaching the area we see that the cache is outside our "comfort zone - CZ) then we move on.

 

The suggestion that someone could get hurt doing these is valid. However, one could get hurt on any cache. The intent, as the CO did, is to provide as much detail, description and caution as possible allowing for the individual cacher to make that decision. We all make comments in our logs - that is our comunity's way of rewarding and warning each other - that's our responsibity as fellow cachers.

 

As mentioned earlier, I am curious as are others, what detail was provided to have these systematically archived. If the activity is illegal then it's a simple answer and we are all equally informed.

 

Dismantling my soap box now.

Edited December 8, 2008 by CondorTrax

[+briansnat]

<<<<<< personal attack, profanity and graphic sexual references deleted >>>>>>

Edited December 9, 2008 by briansnat

[+briansnat]

I completely agree with Gerry's remarks and am concerned that anyone would censor based on "It has come to my attention..." without some tangible proof or documented ordinance. I also spent some time searching the internet and found nothing

 

If a potentially illegal cache is identified, the smart thing to do is to get it off the website immediately. If it turns out that the cache is fine, then it can be re-listed with the push of a button. It's not like an archived cache is blown up and the site can never be re-used.

 

In most cases the reviewers can only go by what they are told by cachers in the field. They really don't have the time or resources to research every reported cache, nor should they have to.

 

It does put the onus on the cache owner to defend his cache. If he can then it can easily be unarchived. If he can't then the archival was probably justified.

 

We have to remember that these actions are taken to protect the long term viability of our sport. It's not some sort of arbitrary power trip. Reviewers are cachers and they want great caches like these listed so they can hunt them too.

[+weathernowcast]

When he calls you back ask him where it is written down, as in a Code Book or Ordinance Book , cause I can not find anything like that anywhere. I checked the County Clerk on line resources and found nothing.

Passaic County does not have a big parks department as I have said before, I was told by one of the men working in Garret Mtn, that for the entire system outside the Golf Course they only have three people.

 

We do not have County Park Police in Passaic County, we have the Sheriff's Department. So be sure to ask the Sheriff Officer exactly where is the rule written down.

 

Not that the Sheriff Office would much care about where it is written down as he leads you off in handcuffs. He would probably say--Don't worry son we will figure that one out later.

 

As some of you know: The City of Paterson ordinances are online here: http://www.generalcode.com/webcode2.html#newj

 

Actually most of the town codes are there. It is more than I wanted to know about what I can not "climb upon" in the City of Paterson. I am now upset I even looked. I don't think we are allowed to climb upon stairs but I suppose climbing upon something is different than climbing but I digress.

<Yeah I know some of the caches are in West Paterson but those codes are not online.>

 

Only Town codes are listed not County Codes on that website and I think that both the city and the county have jurisdiction. When the person from the county parks called me back I was not prepared to ask questions about the locations of the regulations or county codes related to rock climbing or the definitions of climbing as they simply told me "rock climbing is not allowed." But those are good questions to ask, especially if you are in court.

 

Someone else is free to call: Phone (973) 881-4832.

Bill, Perhaps you can call in development of your response to POFE.

Edited December 9, 2008 by weathernowcast

[+Packanack]

A guy I know who is a Sheriff's officer told me that a guy fell off the cliff, so I looked for that and it was only a few months ago, so he said they have been told to watch for people too close and warn them off if they see them.

http://www.northjersey.com/towns/Stump_bre..._off_cliff.html

[+slukster]

I emaile Pfoe yesterday but have not heard from him yet.

 

In the mean time, maybe another cache volunteer approver can answer a questiong for me. If I were to relist the same cache with the same coodinates with a modified cache page that still gives a proper warning but tones down the hype, does it have a chance of being approved? I am not trying to sneak it by Pfoe since I will mention in the note to approver that I am relisting and I will be very explicit as to how the cache is placed.

Edited December 9, 2008 by slukster

[+CondorTrax]

I think at the core of the isue is the legality of the activity. Question has been raised if being at those locations and performing the activity necessary to access the caches is in fact permissible. If it's indeed illegal then re-phrasing the listing wont make a difference.

 

On the other hand, if it's a perception issue ("I think it's unsafe therefore it must be illegal") needs to be clarified.

[+briansnat]

I emaile Pfoe yesterday but have not heard from him yet. He is very fast to approve caches but from my experience in the past he hasn't always answered my emails or has taken a while so I will be patient and hope for the best.

 

In the mean time, maybe another cache volunteer approver can answer a questiong for me. If I were to relist the same cache with the same coodinates with a modified cache page that still gives a proper warning but tones down the hype, does it have a chance of being approved? I am not trying to sneak it by Pfoe since I will mention in the note to approver that I am relisting and I will be very explicit as to how the cache is placed.

 

That is something that only POFE can answer for certain, but I would have to say probably not until the climbing question is resolved. If there is no climbing actually involved you can explain that to your reviewer.

 

As Harry Dolphin mentioned, I think part of the problem might have been the impression your caches pages left.

[woodstrider]

well- there goes another oppurtunity lost!

 

I have seen a number of caches archived due to the high risk factor. One of my hides was denied because it was across the street from the UN in NYC and the NYAdmin thought that it was placed in too sensitive an area, though it was in a tiny urban park. I was very disappointed.

 

Well, It's their call- their websight.

[+slukster]

I received a response from Pfoe and it was encouraging. He said that we can look at each cache on a cache by cache basis and make a determination from there. I will be sure to be very descriptive and provide pics and video if necessary to illustrate what accessing each cache entails and I will leave it in his hands to decide. I will also tone down the cache page. I do realize that at least 2 of them will not make the cut and that is unfortunate but if I can keep any of them going that will be better than none. As I have time I will present them to Pfoe and I will let you know how it goes. Thanks again for your support.

 

-Bill (slukster)

[+nikcap]

I am happy to hear that many have enjoyed my Climbin' & Findin' cache series. I was shocked and dissappointed to see they were archived. As Harry the Dolphin pointed out, my pics exaggerating what the cache experience would be like definately did not help me. I definately think this one helped sink them:the cache description together and I guess I will have to tone back my sense of humor a bit. No more joking about "While you don't have to be a professional rock climber to access this cache" and "if you lose your footing and fall down, it may be the last time you go caching"

 

....

 

I respect the judgement of the cache approvers and understand they have to respond immediately to any complaints about breaking the rules. I might be down but I am not out. The 8th in the series is coming up soon but will be named "This is not a rock climbing cache #1" Thanks again for your support.

 

-Bill (slukster)

 

Slukster, I am absolutely impressed with how you're handled this situation. While I'm sure we are still aways from resolving this situation, Thank you for your efforts in working to get this figured out, I'm sure it will come out to a resolution everyone can be happy with.

 

If nothing else come out of this, I am inspired to search for your caches in 2009.

 

Good Luck, and I'm looking forward to see most or all of these caches back on-line soon!

[+briansnat]

well- there goes another oppurtunity lost!

 

I have seen a number of caches archived due to the high risk factor. One of my hides was denied because it was across the street from the UN in NYC and the NYAdmin thought that it was placed in too sensitive an area, though it was in a tiny urban park. I was very disappointed.

 

Well, It's their call- their websight.

 

I don't think you read this thread. The archival had nothing to do with risk factor. It has to do with the legality of the caches.

[+Gipsie]

Brian, I see where you are coming from. There is enough misunderstanding of the sport of geocaching and we do not need to have geocachers doing illegal activities to bring bad press to the sport we all love.

 

However, I disagree with the way this handled. I think the CO should have been contacted and questions asked before it was unilaterally archived. With that being done that way it opens up the possibility that any cache could be archived at the whim of a cacher who may hold a grudge against another cacher. For example, CacherX being mad at CacherY decides to get even. So he emails POFE, the local reviewer, and asks her to archive one of CacherY's caches because it is dangerous. POFE then archives it without doing any verification. Meanwhile, (and I am thinking of my own PMC here) a lot of work is needed to be done to get said cache unarchived. After about six straight months of planning and work to get it published, I can tell you that would piss me off more than a little. Especially if there was nothing wrong with the cache in the first place.

 

That said, I think the legality of the cache should be checked and if all is OK, then it should be unarchived. After all, these were on my list of to-dos!

 

On another note, a word of advice....All hiders should check every little bit of their cache before hitting the "submit" button. Make sure that there are no laws broken and no Big Green guidelines ignored. It will save a lot of BS in the end!

[+briansnat]

However, I disagree with the way this handled. I think the CO should have been contacted and questions asked before it was unilaterally archived. With that being done that way it opens up the possibility that any cache could be archived at the whim of a cacher who may hold a grudge against another cacher.

 

SOP is for a potentially illegal cache to be removed from the website immediately. If it turns out that there is no basis for the complaint the cache can be unarchived as soon as that is determined.

 

Sure there is a potential for abuse, but when you weigh that against the potential damage to our sport caused by illegal caches, its best to err on the side of caution.

 

We've already witnessesed in SC and along the AT how much grief one person in a position of authority can cause for us if he gets a bug up his butt about geocaching. So the best thing to do to avoid the possibility of getting on the bad side of the authorities is to archive first and sort things out later.

Edited December 10, 2008 by briansnat

[polskikrol]

Rock climbing is not permitted in any County Park.

 

Raymond J. Wright, Jr., Director

Passaic County Parks Department

 

That was the response to the email query I sent.

[+briansnat]

Rock climbing is not permitted in any County Park.

 

Raymond J. Wright, Jr., Director

Passaic County Parks Department

 

That was the response to the email query I sent.

 

Well who does he think he is anyway!

[+weathernowcast]

A friend of mine went to check things out at the the Passaic County park office. This was the report that was give to me by that person as a testimonial of today's events and i was asked to post it here.

 

"Passaic County Parks Department

Rules and Regulations

The following departments could not supply written regulations governing the use of the parks of Passaic County, The County Counsel, The Freeholder Board, The County Clerk, The County Law Library.

 

I then traveled to the Admin Building on Pennsylvania Ave to the Parks Dept.to see about picking up a set of rules. Only to find that the parks department has moved to Goffle Brook Park in Hawthorne. There I found 2 ladies , behind a locked door, wondering who the heck was coming to see them.

Bottom line there are no written park department rules. If you ask about an activity you will be told no. For instance, I have ridden my mountain bike in Garret Mountain, I thought it was allowed, while checking for this issue and for rules of the park, I found that one rider was told by a Sheriffs Officer on a horse that Mtn Biking is not allowed. But guess what that is not really true because there is no written rule.

 

 

I asked for the rules to be faxed when the director comes back. The ladies remembered taking some calls from several people.

 

I then met with a Freeholder , Jim Gallagher, he said they never passed any rules because they found them to be too cumbersome, and some they thought were duplication, but what he did tell me was that if we would like to submit a set of proposed park rules for him to consider he would be happy to take them up for consideration of the board.

 

According to him there are only three rules, No open fires or campfires, No staying in the Parks Overnight, and No Alcoholic Beverages. Along with any posted rules, like no dogs off leash, park only in designated areas.

 

 

When I explained to him about the “Rock Climbing” he said if the Director does not want Rock Climbing that would be it, but he suggested that a proposed rule be included to say : Rock Climbing in Passaic County Parks is not permitted. This rule may be revised by the Director upon showing that a specified area is appropriate to the sport and that all further considerations of the Department are satisfied, including waivers and the like. He told me that they did have a guy go up the cliffs at Garret and caused a big to do, as they had all kinds of people deployed. The guy was a professional or accomplished climber and had no issue, but it caused a stir.

 

 

Mr. Wright called me back later and told me that there is no rule per se, it is a policy and their policy is against it. He also went on to tell me that the current issue was brought to their attention by the Sheriff Department. Which I figured, given the numbers of Sheriff Officers in the area. Also, he believed that climbers had been observed from below at the point where the shooting range is located, there are no more leaves on the trees and persons below can see up to the ridge. But he wasn’t exactly clear on that, but he was clear that it came from the Sheriff’s Department over their concern about people on the cliffs. I know that the Sheriff of Passaic County is aware of Geocaching and became aware of it post 9/11. The Sheriff reported to them what the situation was. I don’t know who reported to POFE. They were concerned about liability suits and cost to the taxpayer in the form of rescue and the like.

Coming away from this , I hope that we as Geocachers have come to learn something.

 

 

Right now we are in our infancy and we are dependent on the good graces of land managers for our sport or hobby. If we bring them agita , they will bring us agita.

 

We fly under the radar of most everyone, when I say to someone , “Oh , yeah I went geocaching over the weekend, they look at me like what is he talking about, but if I said I went bike riding or hiking they know what I am talking about.. We have not developed the credibility that we need to go to bargain with land managers. My own view , is that for viability of sport, we need to start doing that. That is what CITO is about. The NYNJTC, has all the credibility in the world as far as land managers are concerned because they actually do things , like maintain the trails and blaze the trails. That is why when it came time to decide user categories for Sterling Forest, people like Mtn Bikers and Geocachers were told to go away. I was involved with the Mtn Bikers back in the mid 1990’s and we had to work on getting places to ride. At that time I also maintained a section of trail in Ramapo.

 

Guys like Walking Ed , and Geobernd, and Harry Dolphin and BrianSniatkowski and a few others have paved the way for the rest of us with land managers because of their Trail Conference Affiliations

 

I hate to say this but as a group I know of one CITO in spring 2007 and the last one before that was who knows where. When the CITO was completed in 2007 a letter and photos were sent to the Mayor and Council of Wayne to let them know what was done and by whom. A letter like that and when someone says "Geocachers," they would say , Oh yeah those guys are ok.

 

The Director of Parks for Passaic County or any land manager for that matter could on a whim , say NO GEOCACHING. He was real nice and pleasant and he said it was not their goal to drive people out of the parks, but rather get them in for responsible use of the parks. So that is the story. "

Edited December 11, 2008 by weathernowcast

[+macatac1961]

 

" liability "

Bingo! We have a winner!

Edited December 11, 2008 by macatac1961

[+doug-up]

This thread has been an interesting read with a lot of good input. My two cents: This doesn't come down to a question of legality of rock climbing as much to the question of is rock climbing involved. Obviously, if rock climbing is legal, it's all a non-issue for all of the caches. If it is not, then the caches have to be examined on an individual basis. I don't believe any of them should be archived on that basis as I don't think rock climbing, or rock climbing skills, are required.

 

I skipped one of the caches because I didn't feel comfortable without backup (i.e. rope). If it turns out that using gear constitutes rock climbing and is not allowed, then I'll just pass on that cache. Cachers that can do without, good for them.

 

As far as legality, I'm not surprised that there are no explicitly documented rules for the park. Parks/counties will often enforce specific policy rules under under umbrella regulations, such as anything that is considered harmful to the environment is a park violation. Of course, this can be anything from dropping a gum wrapper, to mountain biking, to hammering a piton into a rock. Again, without the use of gear, I don't see how that these caches would result in a violation of these policies.

[+slukster]

So I have finally received word from the local cache approver Pfoe and he actually went out and visited 4 of the caches. Unfortunately only the one (Caution! It is a Long Way Down) has been unarchived and the others are officially done for. Oh well, they were fun while they lasted...

[+doug-up]

So I have finally received word from the local cache approver Pfoe and he actually went out and visited 4 of the caches. Unfortunately only the one (Caution! It is a Long Way Down) has been unarchived and the others are officially done for. Oh well, they were fun while they lasted...

 

Indeed they were. I'm sorry I didn't get to more of them, but thanks for the effort!

Edited January 6, 2009 by doug-up

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

So I have finally received word from the local cache approver Pfoe and he actually went out and visited 4 of the caches. Unfortunately only the one (Caution! It is a Long Way Down) has been unarchived and the others are officially done for. Oh well, they were fun while they lasted...

 

Rumor has it that Pofe's a she....

 

I'm curious why he (she?) actually unarchived it and why not the others?

[+slukster]

 

Rumor has it that Pofe's a she....

 

I'm curious why he (she?) actually unarchived it and why not the others?

 

I think because one of the cache locations looked like this (can you spot the cache?) :

 

 

The one she/he unarchived passed the "no rock climbing in the park" test.

[polskikrol]

 

Rumor has it that Pofe's a she....

 

I'm curious why he (she?) actually unarchived it and why not the others?

 

I think because one of the cache locations looked like this (can you spot the cache?) :

 

 

The one she/he unarchived passed the "no rock climbing in the park" test.

 

This was a good cache - had fun retrieving it however ThirstyMick whacked her back standing up under the tree overlooking the cache on the cliff.

Edited January 8, 2009 by polskikrol