Jump to content

GEOCACHING PERMIT


KD7MXI
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

This does not overly alarm me. They could just as easily ban the activity altogether. This shows that they are trying to make means to pursue the activity while protecting their properties.

 

Yes it is another pain in the tukas but not a horrible chain of events.

 

Filling out that simple piece of paper would not be that bad. If you are making thoughtful, quality hides this is a mere inconvenience.

 

If you are throwing a film canister out the car window and taking a moving coordinate of the bush then yes this is so not worth it.

Edited by undertree
Link to comment

The only problem is that if some one gets hurt in the park and the word geocache is mentioned then your on the hook to defend and protect the city. Could be a very expensive lawyer bill. And if I'm reading it right even if the city screws up and someone gets hurt your still on the hook. I would not sign that because I don't want the liability.

 

Jim

Edited by jholly
Link to comment

I gotta agree with flask. It's better than an outright ban of cache placements.

 

Yeah, it would be a pain in the butt, but it covers the 'adequate permission' part for placement.

 

I have to disagree with jholly though. Just because you placed a cache there doesn't make you responsible for the gopher hole someone tripped in.

 

 

-edit for bad spelling-

Edited by DiamondDaveG
Link to comment

I gotta agree with flask. It's better than an outright ban of cache placements.

 

Yeah, it would be a pain in the butt, but it covers the 'adequate permission' part for placement.

 

I have to disagree with jholly though. Just because you placed a cache there doesn't make you responsible for the gopher hole someone tripped in.

 

 

-edit for bad spelling-

 

But if you were reaching under a log to get the cache and a brown recluse or black widow bit you then you would.

 

Jim

Link to comment

Our state park's have a similar permit that have to be filled out and filed. This permit need's to be renewed once a year, in March, I believe. Our state park's have a policy to that under 500 acre's and the park is allowed 2 cache's in it and over 500 acre's are only allowed 3.

 

I don't mind the permit or the renewal's but I wish the max cache thing was reconsidered.

Link to comment

Both as a hider and as a seeker I have a mild preference for "permitted" caches. No doubt at all the that cache is okay by the land manager, and not dropped in the middle of some nesting zone, or the only place in the county where Chrysopsis floridana grows.

 

I'm aware of geocaching permits by some land managers dating back to '03. As long as fees aren't attached, I'm good with it.

Link to comment

I gotta agree with flask. It's better than an outright ban of cache placements.

 

Yeah, it would be a pain in the butt, but it covers the 'adequate permission' part for placement.

 

I have to disagree with jholly though. Just because you placed a cache there doesn't make you responsible for the gopher hole someone tripped in.

 

 

-edit for bad spelling-

 

But if you were reaching under a log to get the cache and a brown recluse or black widow bit you then you would.

 

Jim

 

Not likely Jim. This isn't anything different than most parks in our area require and I've yet to be held accountable for anything that's happened to any cachers. And one happened to need a knee replacement after finding one of mine. This isn't a way for the PTB to hold us accountable, it's their way of protecting their lands!

 

MiGO works very close with most communities, Ann Arbor being one of them. I've not heard anyone finding this to be a problem!! In fact, I see this as a bit of help since cachers need to actually ASK PERMISSION instead of simply "assuming" they have the OK!!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

What a bunch of sheep you people are. Just hand over your cash when they decide to start charging for it.

 

By all means, dont stand up for individual liberties! Thank God I still live in a state with freedoms!

 

You're way off with that line of thought! Asking people to fill out permits for various activities has been around forever. Think about it!

Link to comment

I gotta agree with flask. It's better than an outright ban of cache placements.

 

Yeah, it would be a pain in the butt, but it covers the 'adequate permission' part for placement.

 

I have to disagree with jholly though. Just because you placed a cache there doesn't make you responsible for the gopher hole someone tripped in.

 

 

-edit for bad spelling-

 

But if you were reaching under a log to get the cache and a brown recluse or black widow bit you then you would.

 

Jim

 

My husband got bit by a brown recluse sitting in a lawn chair on his parents' porch. You mean they weren't responsible for a spider being outside where spiders are and reacting how spiders do when they feel threatened by someone doing something normal when the spider is in the wrong place at the wrong time?

 

If I got bit by a recluse or widow, I'd probably let the cache owner know if I wasn't able to kill the thing... because I'd really try to kill it if it bit me. If I saw a recluse or widow, I'd let the CO know... but widows stay put with their web, whereas recluses roam around so the widow deserves more announcement than a recluse.

 

I'm thinking too much into your comment, aren't I?

Link to comment
What a bunch of sheep you people are.

 

"baah, baah" says the sheep. Yes, sheeplike, I have a preference for letting the field biologist, hired by the public agency, funded by my tax dollars, allocated by my elected representative, check that the hide spot isn't isn't jeopardizing the last stand of an endangered plant. One that, frankly, I wouldn't recognize in a bouquet on my table, but that I sure wouldn't want to destroy.

 

You know, the flip side of liberty being responsibility? a concept that sometimes means turning over an evaluation to the guy who knows enough to do it....

Link to comment

have you got you permit yet?

 

http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicserv..._2009-01-05.pdf

 

looks like other states may be now doing the same

 

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&h...amp;btnG=Search

Huh? Your thread title and your opening post are very misleading and alarmist, because they tend to imply that anyone wishing to hunt a geocache anywhere in Ann Arbor, MI must first obtain a permit, which they will need to carry on their person at all times while hunting caches. Instead, when I went to the trouble to open the PDF document to which you had linked, it simply turned out to be an application form for hiding geocache in city parks located in Ann Arbor, MI. This is not at all different from the the cache hiding application/permission process already in place for thousands of city parks, county parks, state parks and a few federally-owned properties across the USA.

 

Why the big fuss about such a mundane permission-to-hide-a-cache process for city parks in Ann Arbor, MI?

 

At the very least, I suggest that this thread be moved to the appropriate regional section for Michigan.

 

sheesh!

 

.

Link to comment

OK Folks... it is time to chill.

 

Land managers ask for a permit so they can know where caches are placed and who is placing them. This way they have specific knowledge as to who placed it and how it was placed. Not unusual at all. I haven't heard of any entity charging a fee to place or seek a cache.

 

The world is not coming to an end, so please keep it civil.

Edited by Moose Mob
Link to comment

The only problem is that if some one gets hurt in the park and the word geocache is mentioned then your on the hook to defend and protect the city. Could be a very expensive lawyer bill. And if I'm reading it right even if the city screws up and someone gets hurt your still on the hook. I would not sign that because I don't want the liability.

 

Jim

By placing the waiver, the city is attempting to ban goecaching without comming right out an saying so. If I were to read that waiver I would not be willing the hide a cache there.

Link to comment

OK Folks... it is time to chill.

 

Land managers ask for a permit so they can know where caches are placed and who is placing them. This way they have specific knowledge as to who placed it and how it was placed. Not unusual at all. I haven't heard of any entity charging a fee to place or seek a cache.

 

The world is not coming to an end, so please keep it civil.

 

Well MM, before MiGO worked out their deal with the MiDNR and the state parks, we used to have to $35 to place up to 3 caches in our state parks. Not now, now all MiGO members have free use of our parks...but we do have to work closely with the DNR and state parks PTB. This includes permits and following their guidelines! Any non-MiGO member wishing to place a cache in our SP system will still have to pay the $35/3 fee though!!

 

Perks of being a MiGO member!

Link to comment

The only problem is that if some one gets hurt in the park and the word geocache is mentioned then your on the hook to defend and protect the city. Could be a very expensive lawyer bill. And if I'm reading it right even if the city screws up and someone gets hurt your still on the hook. I would not sign that because I don't want the liability.

 

Jim

By placing the waiver, the city is attempting to ban goecaching without comming right out an saying so. If I were to read that waiver I would not be willing the hide a cache there.

 

If you didn't read (and sign) the waiver, you'd not be placing a cache there!! You're reading more into this than is there. It's not in any way an attempt to ban caching, we have plenty of caches in place around there to prove this!

Link to comment

This is a great idea!

Let me explain...

If every CO registers their cache and every future CO does the same, then when a mugg reports a suspicious container, the cops can call NAP rather than automatically blowing it up and wasting tax payer dollars.

Of course if the LEO cachers would get extremely insistent that their agency knew about geocaching and made checking geocaching sites first their SOP for suspicious containers, then TPD would be saved.

Link to comment

(I just can't stay away from this molehill...) :D

 

Yes, I have my permits from the Corps of Engineers and State Park, which are the predominate public areas in this neck-o-the-woods. Glad I did them too. Besides the TOU, the land managers at my 4 (going on 10) hides know where they are (and won't call the bomb squad), that they are not in sensitive areas (environmental, infrastructure, etc.), won't let their high-school summer hires pick them up as geotrache, and will also give me notice if there are planned control burns around the hides. That gives me a chance to pick up the cache before the burn, rather than getting logs of "found a smoldering pile of plastic". Both also gave ideas for the hides, interesting places of history, little-used trails to neat places, and the like. They were happy to help out. "Thank you for helping increase visitation at these places!" The State Park even offered me the use of their pile of unused ammo cans...as many as I wanted...FREE!! Filling out the permits took less than 1 minute, far easier than completing a new cache page (even if they were largely cut-and-pasted).

 

Edited fer spellin.

Edited by JBnW
Link to comment

OK Folks... it is time to chill.

 

Land managers ask for a permit so they can know where caches are placed and who is placing them. This way they have specific knowledge as to who placed it and how it was placed. Not unusual at all. I haven't heard of any entity charging a fee to place or seek a cache.

 

The world is not coming to an end, so please keep it civil.

 

Well said. :D

Link to comment

The only problem is that if some one gets hurt in the park and the word geocache is mentioned then your on the hook to defend and protect the city. Could be a very expensive lawyer bill. And if I'm reading it right even if the city screws up and someone gets hurt your still on the hook. I would not sign that because I don't want the liability.

 

Jim

By placing the waiver, the city is attempting to ban goecaching without comming right out an saying so. If I were to read that waiver I would not be willing the hide a cache there.

I respectfully suggest to both of you that you actually READ the waiver. It says nothing about the cache placer taking responsibility for injuries. It says that YOU, THE CACHE PLACER, will not hold the CITY responsible! As mentioned, this is no different than what you sign to reserve a picnic spot or a ballfield.

Link to comment

The only problem is that if some one gets hurt in the park and the word geocache is mentioned then your on the hook to defend and protect the city. Could be a very expensive lawyer bill. And if I'm reading it right even if the city screws up and someone gets hurt your still on the hook. I would not sign that because I don't want the liability.

 

Jim

By placing the waiver, the city is attempting to ban goecaching without comming right out an saying so. If I were to read that waiver I would not be willing the hide a cache there.

You obviously live in an area of the country (USA) where applications and permitting for cache hides in certain parks is not commonplace. Out here on the east coast, it is very common for state parks, county parks and city parks to require that cachers wishing to emplace caches on their properties go through an application process and gain permission. And, all such application forms, to my best knowledge, include a similar waiver; in any case, all that I have seen and have signed have included such a waiver, and I hear reports of the existence of such waivers on application forms across the USA. If prospective hiders -- such as yourself, for example -- do not like the existence of the waiver clause, then they/you are welcome not to emplace geocaches on those managed properties!

 

.

Link to comment

The only problem is that if some one gets hurt in the park and the word geocache is mentioned then your on the hook to defend and protect the city. Could be a very expensive lawyer bill. And if I'm reading it right even if the city screws up and someone gets hurt your still on the hook. I would not sign that because I don't want the liability.

 

Jim

By placing the waiver, the city is attempting to ban goecaching without comming right out an saying so. If I were to read that waiver I would not be willing the hide a cache there.

You obviously live in an area of the country (USA) where applications and permitting for cache hides in certain parks is not commonplace. Out here on the east coast, it is very common for state parks, county parks and city parks to require that cachers wishing to emplace caches on their properties go through an application process and gain permission. And, all such application forms, to my best knowledge, include a similar waiver; in any case, all that I have seen and have signed have included such a waiver, and I hear reports of the existence of such waivers on application forms across the USA. If prospective hiders -- such as yourself, for example -- do not like the existence of the waiver clause, then they/you are welcome not to emplace geocaches on those managed properties!

 

.

 

and I don't

Link to comment

This is a great idea!

Let me explain...

If every CO registers their cache and every future CO does the same, then when a mugg reports a suspicious container, the cops can call NAP rather than automatically blowing it up and wasting tax payer dollars.

Of course if the LEO cachers would get extremely insistent that their agency knew about geocaching and made checking geocaching sites first their SOP for suspicious containers, then TPD would be saved.

 

Why do you want to deny the Bomb Squad opportunities to blow stuff up?

At this point, they know what a geocache looks like. They just wanna blow something up!

 

:ninja:

 

(I'm kidding for those who can't tell.)

Edited by Redneck Parrotheads
Link to comment

This is a great idea!

Let me explain...

If every CO registers their cache and every future CO does the same, then when a mugg reports a suspicious container, the cops can call NAP rather than automatically blowing it up and wasting tax payer dollars.

Of course if the LEO cachers would get extremely insistent that their agency knew about geocaching and made checking geocaching sites first their SOP for suspicious containers, then TPD would be saved.

 

Why do you want to deny the Bomb Squad opportunities to blow stuff up?

At this point, they know what a geocache looks like. They just wanna blow something up!

 

:grin:

 

(I'm kidding for those who can't tell.)

No your not, you know it's true, I know it's true, they know it's true.

The bomb squad likes the practice because irritating an innocent person by blowing up their cache and wasting TPD beats the frell out of sitting around with a thumb up your butt. :ninja:

Link to comment

Is that for all parks in the city or just "nature preserves" controlled by the city? Like, if someone wanted to put a container on a fence at a baseball park, would they need a permit? It also looks like it's for "city-controlled" areas and wouldn't pertain to private land trusts which are often run by a board of directors.

 

As noted by others, permits have been required in other states for awhile now. NY & VT are two examples that I know about, both of which have required them for a couple years.

 

Edit: Typo

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

The only problem is that if some one gets hurt in the park and the word geocache is mentioned then your on the hook to defend and protect the city. Could be a very expensive lawyer bill. And if I'm reading it right even if the city screws up and someone gets hurt your still on the hook. I would not sign that because I don't want the liability.

 

Jim

By placing the waiver, the city is attempting to ban goecaching without comming right out an saying so. If I were to read that waiver I would not be willing the hide a cache there.

You obviously live in an area of the country (USA) where applications and permitting for cache hides in certain parks is not commonplace. Out here on the east coast, it is very common for state parks, county parks and city parks to require that cachers wishing to emplace caches on their properties go through an application process and gain permission. And, all such application forms, to my best knowledge, include a similar waiver; in any case, all that I have seen and have signed have included such a waiver, and I hear reports of the existence of such waivers on application forms across the USA. If prospective hiders -- such as yourself, for example -- do not like the existence of the waiver clause, then they/you are welcome not to emplace geocaches on those managed properties!

 

.

 

and I don't

 

Would you post your caches on a website that had the following in its Terms of Use?

 

11. LIMITATION OF DAMAGES

 

TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, AND REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OR CAUSE OF ACTION OR THE ALLEGED BASIS OF THE CLAIM, YOU AGREE THAT Groundspeak, ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, AND VOLUNTEER ADMINISTRATORS WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, DIRECT, OR OTHER DAMAGES WHATSOEVER ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR YOUR USE OF THE SITE OR THE SITE INFORMATION, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, AND EVEN IF THE REMEDIES OTHERWISE PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, AT LAW, OR IN EQUITY, FAIL OF THEIR ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. THIS LIMITATION AND EXCLUSION OF DAMAGES INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT OF Groundspeak, OF TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT OR PRODUCT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR BREACH OF WARRANTY.

 

Edit to add: Vinnie is right. The title of this thread is alarmist and misleading. You do not need a permit to seek caches in Ann Arbor. As for tax/fee fears, they've required permits for caches in A^2 for years and it hasn't happened yet.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

What amazes me is that this thread has been going on for several days now, and still, none of our resident right-wing nutcases has dropped in to splutter out the phrase "nanny state."

 

I guess they're all busy on some other forum trying to keep the Commies from taking away their God-given right to set off kids' life-threatening allergies by using peanut butter jars as caches. :laughing:

Link to comment
What amazes me is that this thread has been going on for several days now, and still, none of our resident right-wing nutcases has dropped in to splutter out the phrase "nanny state."

 

I guess they're all busy on some other forum trying to keep the Commies from taking away their God-given right to set off kids' life-threatening allergies by using peanut butter jars as caches. :laughing:

If you cannot post regarding the topic, please don't post at all. In addition, if you are unable to show respect to fellow community members, the moderators would be happy to assist in lessons.

Link to comment
Edit to add: Vinnie is right. The title of this thread is alarmist and misleading. You do not need a permit to seek caches in Ann Arbor. As for tax/fee fears, they've required permits for caches in A^2 for years and it hasn't happened yet.

I read the original msg since I used to live in Ann Arbor. The poster lives over a thousand miles from Michigan, and according to the OP's cache map has never cached anywhere near there. There are lots of places in Ann Arbor to place a cache without being affected by the permit process. Many parks already request a permit anyway, so the announcement of a permit process in Ann Arbor isn't big news. :laughing: Edited by steve p
Link to comment

I gotta agree with flask. It's better than an outright ban of cache placements.

 

Yeah, it would be a pain in the butt, but it covers the 'adequate permission' part for placement.

 

I have to disagree with jholly though. Just because you placed a cache there doesn't make you responsible for the gopher hole someone tripped in.

 

 

-edit for bad spelling-

 

But if you were reaching under a log to get the cache and a brown recluse or black widow bit you then you would.

 

Jim

 

My husband got bit by a brown recluse sitting in a lawn chair on his parents' porch. You mean they weren't responsible for a spider being outside where spiders are and reacting how spiders do when they feel threatened by someone doing something normal when the spider is in the wrong place at the wrong time?

 

If I got bit by a recluse or widow, I'd probably let the cache owner know if I wasn't able to kill the thing... because I'd really try to kill it if it bit me. If I saw a recluse or widow, I'd let the CO know... but widows stay put with their web, whereas recluses roam around so the widow deserves more announcement than a recluse.

 

I'm thinking too much into your comment, aren't I?

 

You mean like this? I posted this photo and the exact spot of the web on the cache page where I found her!

 

FredericksburgGeocaching013-1.jpg

Link to comment
Edit to add: Vinnie is right. The title of this thread is alarmist and misleading. You do not need a permit to seek caches in Ann Arbor. As for tax/fee fears, they've required permits for caches in A^2 for years and it hasn't happened yet.

I read the original msg since I used to live in Ann Arbor. The poster lives over a thousand miles from Michigan, and according to the OP's cache map has never cached anywhere near there. There are lots of places in Ann Arbor to place a cache without being affected by the permit process. Many parks already request a permit anyway, so the announcement of a permit process in Ann Arbor isn't big news. :anicute:

The amazing thing is that this "non-event" thread is still active, and lots of posters are still squawking as if some fundamental right had been stolen from them. All of which goes to prove, in my mind, that the world is full of drama queens who do not have even one toe touching the ground, so far out of touch with reality are they.

Link to comment

The amazing thing is that this "non-event" thread is still active, and lots of posters are still squawking as if some fundamental right had been stolen from them. All of which goes to prove, in my mind, that the world is full of drama queens who do not have even one toe touching the ground, so far out of touch with reality are they.

I hope quoting my post wasn't meant to imply that I am "squawking as if some fundamental right had been stolen from me." :anicute:

I think I was agreeing with what you're saying, that the original post was by a drama queen, and one who isn't even remotely affected by events in Ann Arbor, MI

Link to comment

The amazing thing is that this "non-event" thread is still active, and lots of posters are still squawking as if some fundamental right had been stolen from them. All of which goes to prove, in my mind, that the world is full of drama queens who do not have even one toe touching the ground, so far out of touch with reality are they.

I hope quoting my post wasn't meant to imply that I am "squawking as if some fundamental right had been stolen from me." :anicute:

I think I was agreeing with what you're saying, that the original post was by a drama queen, and one who isn't even remotely affected by events in Ann Arbor, MI

 

chicken see - chicken do

 

if it works in one location - others will follow

Link to comment

I am glad i live in Idaho as it usually takes several years to catch up to other states on most anything.

 

I do see many good points on this.

 

I keep my local law inforcement and Fire chief updated with maps of Geocaches in our area and they both have my number to call 24-7 incase there is a issue so it does not waste tax payers money.

 

I have hid over 200 caches around and i had one complaint of my cache being placed on private property and it was not and i proved it but I archived it anyways so there was no bad feelings.

 

I have been hearing of Geocachers finding Caches around and Property owners catching them and making them remove it and or being upset due to somebody placing it on there land without permission.

 

Our computer mapping systems are not acurate or detailed enough on BLM and Private land borders and Geocachers are placing them on Private land.

This happens alot with Hunting as well and it is frocing property owners to have to post more signs and when you own thousands of acres it is not right to have to keep up on signs and etc to let everyone know it is private.

 

It is great to see a solution like this just incase Geocaching runs into a issue around my area.

 

I hope where there are parks that have over 500 acres and a lot of lakes and etc, The Geocachers only keep there caches active for a year or 2 so others can be placed in different areas to take Geocachers back to enjoy the area more then once in a lifetime.

Link to comment

The amazing thing is that this "non-event" thread is still active, and lots of posters are still squawking as if some fundamental right had been stolen from them. All of which goes to prove, in my mind, that the world is full of drama queens who do not have even one toe touching the ground, so far out of touch with reality are they.

I hope quoting my post wasn't meant to imply that I am "squawking as if some fundamental right had been stolen from me." :anicute:

I think I was agreeing with what you're saying, that the original post was by a drama queen, and one who isn't even remotely affected by events in Ann Arbor, MI

Steve, no, not at all, and rather, my post was prompted by the excellent points which you made in your post; I agreed with your post, and I was simply carrying my observations the entire matter a bit further! :(;)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...