Another one bits the dust.

[+kf4oox]

News Flash off of NWPA Geocaching email list.

 

'm sure most of you have already heard this...

 

>From Jet Action News 24:

 

Walmart in Titusville Evacuated

 

The Walmart in Titusville was evacuated this morning because of a

suspicious package.

 

Members of the Erie Bomb Squad went to Titusville to check out the

situation, and ended up blowing up a box they found in the parking

lot around 1 o'clock this afternoon.

 

It appears the box was part of a geo-caching game, where boxes or

prizes are hidden around an area and then located by use of GPS

units.

 

Apparently other prize-filled boxes have been called in as

suspicious packages in the past.

 

View the story at:

 

<http://yourerie.com/content/fulltext/?cid=47402>

 

I'm guessing its GC18NBM, although someone local would need to

confirm it.

[Clan Riffster]

Once again, idiocy prevails in our first responders.

"Hey Bill, whadjoo do today?"

"We blew up some Tupperware... Gotta be safe, doncha know..."

[+JBnW]

Should we start a pool on when WallyWorld issues a coporate policy against LPCs?

[+LionsLair]

That's funny right there, I don't care who you are, that's funny!!

 

 

Although I have one of my TB's marked well, I often get asked if it's a pipe bomb... I've started replying, "yep! ...give it a good shake!... here's your sign!"

[Mr.Yuck]

Should we start a pool on when WallyWorld issues a coporate policy against LPCs?

 

Well, I've been waiting 2.5 years for Trackinthebox to get caching banned at Wally World, so someone else has to take the bull by the horns.

 

The Google sat view appears to have been taken when the store was under construction. But I'd imagine the cache was outside the parking lot in landscaping.

[+kf4oox]

When it comes down to public safety they are going to error on the side of caution. In an urban area use a see through cache container with an Geocaching label on it. A hand printed or a box they can not see into will result in BOOM. They need to make it safe. Placing a label on a box will not stop them from tuning it into little bits.

 

We also need to talk to PD & FD and educated them on Geocaching. Even though a local cacher had talk to the local PD & FD they still called in the Bomb Squad from Erie and they did their thing.

 

Cachers need to open a dialog with their local PD & FD and try to work with them on this.

 

When PD receives these call they have to do certain things. When it is a Geocache it is a dam if you do and dam if you don't thing. If they respond to one of these calls then say it is a Geocache not to worry then a few hours later it goes BOOM by it self killing and injuring people they have a BIG problem.

 

Please remember once someone calls in a possible bomb the local PD will talk to people then call in the Bomb Squad and remove people from the area and secure it till the Bomb Squad arrives and check it out.

 

What can we do use a clear container like the official L&L's by Geocaching.com open a dialog with PD & FD.

 

kf4oox - Paul

[+GrnXnham]

Some of these problems could also be prevented if the cache owner actually got permission before placing these caches on private property.

[+Bergie Bunch]

This was a 2qt. camo L&L, hidden in the pines, clearly marked geocache with stickers. Thank goodness it was empty...Placed with permission of store mgr. last year. Bought the container and tape at the store, showed the Mgr. what it was for, explained what geocaching was, if it was OK to place near the retention pond at the end of the lot, he gave permission, we placed it. Bummer...may our teams cache rest in peace

Edited February 18, 2009 by Bergie Bunch

[+Bergie Bunch]

Should we start a pool on when WallyWorld issues a coporate policy against LPCs?

Was not an LPC

[jholly]

When it comes down to public safety they are going to error on the side of caution. In an urban area use a see through cache container with an Geocaching label on it.

 

And in the name of public safety they will will still blow them up.

 

Jim

 

or is it in the name of practice, I forget.

[+Renegade Knight]

Some of these problems could also be prevented if the cache owner actually got permission before placing these caches on private property.

 

How so? The person reporting the cache as suspicous doesn't know about the permission. The person receiving the call doesn't know about the permission. The person who decides on how to respond doesn't know about permission. When the team is dispatched, they don't know about permission. If at that point someone who does shows up they won't get close enough to see what's going on, and even if they did know the real deal, protocol takes over. Cachers who have come back and said told the squad it's not a bomb have been rebuffed and the team disabled the cache anyway.

 

When it's all over, Permission may come into play as grandstanding people seek to allocate the blame, when they should just accept that everyone did exactly what they should do and s*** happens just like they knew it would. There is no blame to be had. We live in a world with both bomb squads and bombers. It's ok if we go about our lives and enjoy a harmless activity. False alarms would remain if caching stopped tomorrow. You would be impressed at the stupid crap that gets blown up.

 

http://digg.com/world_news/Boston_police_b...ed_to_lightpost

Edited February 18, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

When it comes down to public safety they are going to error on the side of caution. In an urban area use a see through cache container with an Geocaching label on it.

 

And in the name of public safety they will will still blow them up.

 

 

But they blow up real good.

[+JBnW]

Should we start a pool on when WallyWorld issues a coporate policy against LPCs?

Was not an LPC

OK, my mistake. But looking at the video link, it appeared to be blown up in the middle of the parking lot. Did they really pick it up and move it before blowing it up?? This is SOP??

[+Bergie Bunch]

Apparently from a guy that was there, it was in the middle of the parking lot. He didn't know if muggles moved it or the PD.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't know about Erie, but some of the smaller, low rent EODs utilize containment vessels mounted on trailers.

Picture a small cement mixer with the hole pointed up.

Squad members physically move the "device" into the vessel, then detonate it inside.

If Erie uses one, this may account for why it was blown up in the parking lot.

Some of these problems could also be prevented if the cache owner actually got permission before placing these caches on private property.

Typically, it's the first responder who sets the tone for the incident. If Officer Bubba sees a Tupperware and thinks, "Hot Diggity! Them there Al Kay-dah fellers are tryin' to blow up a pine tree!!", it's likely he will escalate the incident to an EOD response. If Deputy Riffster shows up and says, "Hey, there's a cache that's not in my Garmin. Whoo Hoo!! I get a smiley on duty!!" then the incident stops right there. Permission rarely enters into the picture.

[+jeffbouldin]

Since I live in a town 20 miles from GeoWoodstock and many attending will be staying here, I approached the Smyrna PD and had a great talk with their community relations officer. A few years ago they had one reported in the Lowes parking lot and he said they were very concerned until they figured it out. No bomb squad, they had some common sense. He was very appreciative that I contacted him and let him know about the increase of people poking around bushes and lamp post that week. I gave him a handful of the printouts from geocacher-u.com which he will copy and pass out to the watch commanders who will pass it out to the officers on the street. I left him my contact info and offered to come give presentations to the officers. Also if my meeting with the local parks department goes well and we organize some intro events I told him I'd let him know about them so he can let the officers know. Hopefully having someone to contact when something is in question will keep incidents from shall we say getting "blown" out of proportion.

[+Star*Hopper]

Had a thought the other night while sittin' at the telescope......been saving it for the right opportunity to express - so this is about as good a place as any I guess.

 

Say what you want about 'em....hate 'em all you want....curse 'em with every breath. But one thing you gotta admit is,

no 35mm film cannister or 'Blinky Nano' ever got set off by the Bomb Squad!!!

 

Forsooth, & verily.

~*

[+Riverwolf]

Typically, it's the first responder who sets the tone for the incident. If Officer Bubba sees a Tupperware and thinks, "Hot Diggity! Them there Al Kay-dah fellers are tryin' to blow up a pine tree!!", it's likely he will escalate the incident to an EOD response. If Deputy Riffster shows up and says, "Hey, there's a cache that's not in my Garmin. Whoo Hoo!! I get a smiley on duty!!" then the incident stops right there. Permission rarely enters into the picture.

 

Exactly. Common sense has to break out somewhere and sometime soon about these things. While I understand, intellectually, the reasoning for these type of responses, the thing that crosses my mind and then escapes my lips is "who would want to blow up THAT area anyway?!" 9/11 has made the people of the United States paranoid and anything that doesn't look like it belongs prompts a call to the cops. Either it's paranoia or it is the desire to feel like having the power over someone else to get them to react to your direction.

 

Since I live in a town 20 miles from GeoWoodstock and many attending will be staying here, I approached the Smyrna PD and had a great talk with their community relations officer. A few years ago they had one reported in the Lowes parking lot and he said they were very concerned until they figured it out. No bomb squad, they had some common sense. He was very appreciative that I contacted him and let him know about the increase of people poking around bushes and lamp post that week. I gave him a handful of the printouts from geocacher-u.com which he will copy and pass out to the watch commanders who will pass it out to the officers on the street. I left him my contact info and offered to come give presentations to the officers. Also if my meeting with the local parks department goes well and we organize some intro events I told him I'd let him know about them so he can let the officers know. Hopefully having someone to contact when something is in question will keep incidents from shall we say getting "blown" out of proportion.

 

As an attendee of the next Geowoodstock, let me be the first to thank you for your effort! I know I will appreciate the fact that I am not going to be hassled by the police for searching here, there and everywhere while caching in the Bell Buckle, TN area. THANKS!

Edited February 18, 2009 by Riverwolf

[+emtfire10]

As one of the members of TeamEmtFireKids & the member whom placed the cache originally @ the Titusville Walmart, permission was granted last winter by the Store Mgr to place the cache.

 

Can I blame PSP, or the Erie Bomb Squad for blowing it up? In reality no, they were doing their job. I respect what they do, understand what they do & why they do it. As I come from a family of LEO's & Firefighters of 3rd generation.

 

Was the container marked properly? The container was a clear 2qt Lock-n-Lock by Rubbermaid. It was camo taped to match the pine tree it was originally placed in. A small "Official Groundspeak Geocache" sticker on the lid, with email/cellphone contact information (laminated) inside of it with the logbook.

 

Looking at the video, from where the Bomb Squad had detonated the cache at, it was in or towards the middle of the parking lot. This is not where the cache was originally placed at all. The cache was placed @ the end of the parking lot, in a small pine tree near a retention pond. (Clearly away from the building, far end of the parking lot)

 

This cache was not easy to spot in its hiding place either, quite a few times I have gone over to check on the cache, parked right in front of it & could not see it. So it to have been moved out into the open, prior to calling PSP, Titusville PD & the Erie Bomb Squad by someone or something.

 

The cache lived a short but good life of 13 months & 1 day, helped quite a few TBs & coins out & last but not least gave 79 cachers a smiley.

Edited February 18, 2009 by emtfire10

[+va griz]

Right or wrong, the reporter said they found it in the parking lot. The video shows them blowing it up pretty much right in front of the store, which would explain why they evacuated the store. There was no containment vessel. It looked like they cleared a section of the parking lot and did it right out in the open. How they got it there is not obvious. But it was not a big explosion. I think the cache would have traveled further if it had been kicked across the lot. You can even see a car drive by on the road just after it pops, so it seems they didn't really exspect a big bang. Of course that leads to the question of why they used explosives at all. I guess if your only tool is a hammer all your problems look like nails.

[+JBnW]

 

The container was a clear 2qt Lock-n-Lock by Rubbermaid. It was camo taped to match the pine tree it was originally placed in. A small "Official Groundspeak Geocache" sticker on the lid, with email/cellphone contact information (laminated) inside of it with the logbook.

 

Just a couple of questions. If the container was wrapped in camo tape, was it still "clear", as in see-through? Was it possible for anyone to see and get the contact information without having to open the container?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Some of these problems could also be prevented if the cache owner actually got permission before placing these caches on private property.

Thank you.

 

As in this case (which was permitted), it won't stop it completely, but it will go a long way towards that goal.

Edited February 18, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Tequila]

Should we start a pool on when WallyWorld issues a coporate policy against LPCs?

Was not an LPC

OK, my mistake. But looking at the video link, it appeared to be blown up in the middle of the parking lot. Did they really pick it up and move it before blowing it up?? This is SOP??

 

They would use a robot to move it.

[+sbell111]

It appears from some of these posts that many people believe that the police tape C4 to these caches and explode them.

 

As I understand it, most bomb squads blast the object with a water cannon. Not only does the object not 'explode', but they are able to better study it afterwards.

[Mr.Yuck]

Had a thought the other night while sittin' at the telescope......been saving it for the right opportunity to express - so this is about as good a place as any I guess.

 

Say what you want about 'em....hate 'em all you want....curse 'em with every breath. But one thing you gotta admit is,

no 35mm film cannister or 'Blinky Nano' ever got set off by the Bomb Squad!!!

 

Forsooth, & verily.

~*

 

What's up with that blank post by EMTFire10? I don't see anything. Just kidding.

 

That's a pretty bold (pun intended) statement in bold there Star*Hopper. Many a micro has been blown up, including an LPC at a Sams Club somewhat local to me:

 

It's not a bomb (obviously re-named) in California

 

gnarly cache in California

 

Hang 'em high - 1968 in California

 

Mental Floss I Number Fun in Arkansas

 

Mr. Jug in California

 

Restin' in Dunnedin Too in Florida

 

Sams Club micro cache in New York

Edited February 18, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+va griz]

It appears from some of these posts that many people believe that the police tape C4 to these caches and explode them.

 

As I understand it, most bomb squads blast the object with a water cannon. Not only does the object not 'explode', but they are able to better study it afterwards.

 

The video shows it being "disrupted" to use the spokesman's term. I don't know what they used. It wasn't very powerful but it clearly wasn't a water cannon either.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Should we start a pool on when WallyWorld issues a coporate policy against LPCs?

 

Well, I've been waiting 2.5 years for Trackinthebox to get caching banned at Wally World, so someone else has to take the bull by the horns.

 

The Google sat view appears to have been taken when the store was under construction. But I'd imagine the cache was outside the parking lot in landscaping.

First, thank you for having mentioned Trackinthebox, one of my favorite posters of all time!

 

Next, getting back on topic, I do not believe that we will ever see a complete and to the scenario of bomb squads blowing up geocaches -- even it all caches were to be labeled properly and only clear containers used -- until the wave of knee-jerk over-reactions to possible terror threats on the part of government, the populace and the media in the wake of 9/11 subside. In fact, since 9/11 happened so many years ago, I, for one, am rather amazed that the level of over-vigilance about terror threats has not yet subsided. In fact, it is almost as if an occult hand from above keeps fanning the flames of hysteria and over-reaction regarding possible terror threats, resulting in incidents such as the one referenced by the OP.

 

.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Some of these problems could also be prevented if the cache owner actually got permission before placing these caches on private property.

Thank you.

 

As in this case (which was permitted), it won't stop it completely, but it will go a long way towards that goal.

As follow-up to my own post, CR is quite a bit more experienced than I and I bow to his expertise... I am not in law enforcement and have only opinions, not knowledge.

 

Still, it would seem to me that when the alarm is raised and someone goes to the land-owner to report "There is a suspicious package in yon flower bed that should be investigated" the land-owner can solve the problem by saying "That's a geocache, and I gave permission for it to be hidden there".

 

The problem with this case, as with so many where permitted hides have been targeted, is in the phrase 'adequate permission'. This cache had permission but it probably wasn't adequate... a retail store has many managers, at various levels, and they all tend to be rather transient, so having the permission of one manager does not get you adequate permission. Every manager who might be on duty would have to know about it, and when they go on vacation or get transferred they would have to tell their replacement about it. Only then would the hide approach having adequate permission.

 

This, of course, is simply not going to happen in any more than a mom-n-pop size operation, so caches placed at urban retailers will never have adequate permission.

 

It is my guess that the above scenario played out here... when the alert was raised the one manager who had given permission was not on duty, and nobody else knew about it.

[+sbell111]

Some of these problems could also be prevented if the cache owner actually got permission before placing these caches on private property.

Thank you.

 

As in this case (which was permitted), it won't stop it completely, but it will go a long way towards that goal.

As follow-up to my own post, CR is quite a bit more experienced than I and I bow to his expertise... I am not in law enforcement and have only opinions, not knowledge.

 

Still, it would seem to me that when the alarm is raised and someone goes to the land-owner to report "There is a suspicious package in yon flower bed that should be investigated" the land-owner can solve the problem by saying "That's a geocache, and I gave permission for it to be hidden there".

 

The problem with this case, as with so many where permitted hides have been targeted, is in the phrase 'adequate permission'. This cache had permission but it probably wasn't adequate... a retail store has many managers, at various levels, and they all tend to be rather transient, so having the permission of one manager does not get you adequate permission. Every manager who might be on duty would have to know about it, and when they go on vacation or get transferred they would have to tell their replacement about it. Only then would the hide approach having adequate permission.

 

This, of course, is simply not going to happen in any more than a mom-n-pop size operation, so caches placed at urban retailers will never have adequate permission.

 

It is my guess that the above scenario played out here... when the alert was raised the one manager who had given permission was not on duty, and nobody else knew about it.

No offense, but your post reads like one that hopes to build a wall high enough to save a leaky theory from the flood. It reads like it was written by one of the posters who hates 'those' caches so much that he would build any argument to do away with them and continue to build onto his argument as people explain it's flaws until he is left with a position that 1) cannot be argued against and 2) is too unwieldy to reasonably implement.

 

Using the same logic, you would be left with the conclusion that no cache could ever receive good enough permission since even if you place a cache on your own property, someone could imagine a scenarion that led to overreaction while you were not home. You would need the signed permission of everyone who lives, works, or might ever visit the proposed location and it's surrounding area.

[+Sioneva]

<snip>

First, thank you for having mentioned Trackinthebox, one of my favorite posters of all time!

 

Next, getting back on topic, I do not believe that we will ever see a complete and to the scenario of bomb squads blowing up geocaches -- even it all caches were to be labeled properly and only clear containers used -- until the wave of knee-jerk over-reactions to possible terror threats on the part of government, the populace and the media in the wake of 9/11 subside. In fact, since 9/11 happened so many years ago, I, for one, am rather amazed that the level of over-vigilance about terror threats has not yet subsided. In fact, it is almost as if an occult hand from above keeps fanning the flames of hysteria and over-reaction regarding possible terror threats, resulting in incidents such as the one referenced by the OP.

 

.

 

And I don't even get overtime...

 

Back on topic, it would be nice if they actually took some of that vigilance and applied it where it counts. Like not releasing terrorists from Gitmo to go become heads of al-Quada cells... just think of how many caches someone like THAT would blow up?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

No offense, but your post reads like one that hopes to build a wall high enough to save a leaky theory from the flood. It reads like it was written by one of the posters who hates 'those' caches so much that he would build any argument to do away with them and continue to build onto his argument as people explain it's flaws until he is left with a position that 1) cannot be argued against and 2) is too unwieldy to reasonably implement.

 

Using the same logic, you would be left with the conclusion that no cache could ever receive good enough permission since even if you place a cache on your own property, someone could imagine a scenarion that led to overreaction while you were not home. You would need the signed permission of everyone who lives, works, or might ever visit the proposed location and it's surrounding area.

As usual you take an extreme response to my post, but this time you are in fact correct!

 

It comes down to the definition of 'adequate'. To me, if the party responsible for the property at the time the cache comes into question does not know about it then in fact it does not have adequate permission!

 

'Adequate permission' therefore means that when a cache comes into question there will be someone in authority over the location available who knows about and permits the placement.

 

As to my trying to make a case against caches of this nature, I have no problem whatsoever with them, I have found thousands like this and even hidden a few. Hiking hurts me, I will take a parking lot cache over one that requires a hike any day, but this isn't a debate about what I like or don't like, it's about the fact that caches 'placed with permission' will continue to attract unwanted attention when that permission is inadequate, as it almost always will be in urban retail locations such as this.

 

If you place a cache on a retailer's property like in this case don't be surprised when it attracts attention, even when you have a managers permission; unless ALL managers know that it has permission then the permission is inadequate to prevent an alarm from escalating.

 

To me it's pretty simple... the guidelines call for adequate permission, and caches like this will rarely achieve that, at least under my above definition of 'adequate', ergo cache placements of this nature will rarely meet the guideline.

[+sbell111]

No offense, but your post reads like one that hopes to build a wall high enough to save a leaky theory from the flood. It reads like it was written by one of the posters who hates 'those' caches so much that he would build any argument to do away with them and continue to build onto his argument as people explain it's flaws until he is left with a position that 1) cannot be argued against and 2) is too unwieldy to reasonably implement.

 

Using the same logic, you would be left with the conclusion that no cache could ever receive good enough permission since even if you place a cache on your own property, someone could imagine a scenarion that led to overreaction while you were not home. You would need the signed permission of everyone who lives, works, or might ever visit the proposed location and it's surrounding area.

As usual you take an extreme response to my post, but this time you are in fact correct!

 

It comes down to the definition of 'adequate'. To me, if the party responsible for the property at the time the cache comes into question does not know about it then in fact it does not have adequate permission!

 

'Adequate permission' therefore means that when a cache comes into question there will be someone in authority over the location available who knows about and permits the placement.

 

As to my trying to make a case against caches of this nature, I have no problem whatsoever with them, I have found thousands like this and even hidden a few. Hiking hurts me, I will take a parking lot cache over one that requires a hike any day, but this isn't a debate about what I like or don't like, it's about the fact that caches 'placed with permission' will continue to attract unwanted attention when that permission is inadequate, as it almost always will be in urban retail locations such as this.

 

If you place a cache on a retailer's property like in this case don't be surprised when it attracts attention, even when you have a managers permission; unless ALL managers know that it has permission then the permission is inadequate to prevent an alarm from escalating.

 

To me it's pretty simple... the guidelines call for adequate permission, and caches like this will rarely achieve that, at least under my above definition of 'adequate', ergo cache placements of this nature will rarely meet the guideline.

In my opinion, you are using an extreme and unreasoned definition of 'adequate'. Your position relies on the assumption that 1) there will always be a known person at the location who is 'in charge' and 2) that this person's knowledge will be sufficient to halt the actions of the bomb squad, and 3) that it is reasonable to believe that someone outside the chain of command should be able to halt these actions, among other glaring issues.

 

It should also be noted that I differ with your presumption that the escalation of said 'alarm' is cause for concern. The mere fact that the bomb squad made a safe item safe does not mean that any changes are required. In fact, this situation is the perfect argument for 'no action required'. The cache owner hid an appropriately labeled cache in a good spot with epress permission. The police did their jobs. The cache should either be replaced or archived. Beyond that, there is simply nothing to see here.

Edited February 18, 2009 by sbell111

[Keystone]

On the side debate about "adequate" permission, I'm reminded of another example from Northwest Pennsylvania. The cache was hidden at the police station, permission was granted by the police chief, and the desk sergeant knew about the cache. Still, the bomb squad destroyed the cache when a report was made. You can't get much more "adequate" than that.

 

This cache was hidden with permission. This was disclosed by the owner to the reviewer at the time of publication. Good job! Perhaps the practical benefit of having permission is the avoidance of a bill for the response cost, and saving geocaching from bad publicity.

[+Castle Mischief]

Had a thought the other night while sittin' at the telescope......been saving it for the right opportunity to express - so this is about as good a place as any I guess.

 

Say what you want about 'em....hate 'em all you want....curse 'em with every breath. But one thing you gotta admit is,

no 35mm film cannister or 'Blinky Nano' ever got set off by the Bomb Squad!!!

 

Forsooth, & verily.

~*

 

Actually, I seem to recall a story of a film canister being shot by a local LEO to "disable the possible threat".

[+Renegade Knight]

...The problem with this case, as with so many where permitted hides have been targeted, is in the phrase 'adequate permission'. This cache had permission but it probably wasn't adequate... a retail store has many managers, at various levels, and they all tend to be rather transient, so having the permission of one manager does not get you adequate permission. ...

 

Permission really doesn't factor into what gets reported and what gets responded to and what gets destroyed. It's the wrong tree to be barking up to solve this issue (actually the solution to the issue is when everone beats the swords into ploughshares and we don't need bomb squads anymore but that's not going to happen today).

[Mr.Yuck]

On the side debate about "adequate" permission, I'm reminded of another example from Northwest Pennsylvania. The cache was hidden at the police station, permission was granted by the police chief, and the desk sergeant knew about the cache. Still, the bomb squad destroyed the cache when a report was made. You can't get much more "adequate" than that.

 

This cache was hidden with permission. This was disclosed by the owner to the reviewer at the time of publication. Good job! Perhaps the practical benefit of having permission is the avoidance of a bill for the response cost, and saving geocaching from bad publicity.

 

Ah yes, I remember when the cache was blown up at the Police Station near Erie. So we have two examples, and if you look at the hides attributed to TeamEmtFireKids, owners of Wally Tville Travel Bug Hotel (subject of this thread) you see two more examples of not everyone being "in" on the permission! At The Roof was removed when other employees were concerned with the cache, despite the Manager giving permission, and the The Meadville Travel Bug Hotel was removed by the day manager, despite permission from the night Manager.

 

So yes, I agree with Keystone; "Perhaps the practical benefit of having permission is the avoidance of a bill for the response cost, and saving geocaching from bad publicity."

[+emtfire10]

Adequate permission was "granted" by the STORE MGR not any of the lwr mgrs or asst mgrs. Hence why the cache was then placed in it's original location. As it has been stated before, no matter "How much permission you receive" once the Bomb Squad is called, they are going to follow their prodcedures & protocol in rendering it in-op.

 

ANY caches that is placed on Retail Property by either the team that I am part of or by myself, PERMISSION is asked to do such prior. It is clearly explained about the intended contents of the container & the sport of geocaching. Once everything is done with, the container is then brought back to the MGR again, so that he/she can now see exactly what the container looks like & the original start of the contents within.

 

As for this container itself, it was ORIGINALLY a clear Lock-n-Lock for which the MGR did see considering it was bought right there from that Walmart at the time. It was then covered in camo tape to "match or fairly match" the surroundings it was originally placed in.

 

 

Some of these problems could also be prevented if the cache owner actually got permission before placing these caches on private property.

Thank you.

 

As in this case (which was permitted), it won't stop it completely, but it will go a long way towards that goal.

As follow-up to my own post, CR is quite a bit more experienced than I and I bow to his expertise... I am not in law enforcement and have only opinions, not knowledge.

 

Still, it would seem to me that when the alarm is raised and someone goes to the land-owner to report "There is a suspicious package in yon flower bed that should be investigated" the land-owner can solve the problem by saying "That's a geocache, and I gave permission for it to be hidden there".

 

The problem with this case, as with so many where permitted hides have been targeted, is in the phrase 'adequate permission'. This cache had permission but it probably wasn't adequate... a retail store has many managers, at various levels, and they all tend to be rather transient, so having the permission of one manager does not get you adequate permission. Every manager who might be on duty would have to know about it, and when they go on vacation or get transferred they would have to tell their replacement about it. Only then would the hide approach having adequate permission.

 

This, of course, is simply not going to happen in any more than a mom-n-pop size operation, so caches placed at urban retailers will never have adequate permission.

 

It is my guess that the above scenario played out here... when the alert was raised the one manager who had given permission was not on duty, and nobody else knew about it.

[+emtfire10]

At the roof cache was removed after concerns of the employees pertaining to the amounts of vehicle break ins that were happening in that area. We removed it under the advisement of the Local PD to further protect any futher geo cachers from getting caught up in wrong doings going on there.

 

As for the Meadville Travel Bug Hotel Cache, the young lady identified herself as being the MGR of the said establishment at both times. What more could you ask for? A letter from the Corp office explaining that the person whom you spoke with is in deed the MGR, Employee Photo Identification verifying whom they say they are?

 

Not sure what else could be done, except for maybe getting a Official Written Letter from the Corporation itself, explaining the cacher has been granted permission to place a cache on retail property. But is this going to stop things such as this from happening, IMHO it will not.

 

On the side debate about "adequate" permission, I'm reminded of another example from Northwest Pennsylvania. The cache was hidden at the police station, permission was granted by the police chief, and the desk sergeant knew about the cache. Still, the bomb squad destroyed the cache when a report was made. You can't get much more "adequate" than that.

 

This cache was hidden with permission. This was disclosed by the owner to the reviewer at the time of publication. Good job! Perhaps the practical benefit of having permission is the avoidance of a bill for the response cost, and saving geocaching from bad publicity.

 

Ah yes, I remember when the cache was blown up at the Police Station near Erie. So we have two examples, and if you look at the hides attributed to TeamEmtFireKids, owners of Wally Tville Travel Bug Hotel (subject of this thread) you see two more examples of not everyone being "in" on the permission! At The Roof was removed when other employees were concerned with the cache, despite the Manager giving permission, and the The Meadville Travel Bug Hotel was removed by the day manager, despite permission from the night Manager.

 

So yes, I agree with Keystone; "Perhaps the practical benefit of having permission is the avoidance of a bill for the response cost, and saving geocaching from bad publicity."

[+Star*Hopper]

Had a thought the other night while sittin' at the telescope......been saving it for the right opportunity to express - so this is about as good a place as any I guess.

 

Say what you want about 'em....hate 'em all you want....curse 'em with every breath. But one thing you gotta admit is,

no 35mm film cannister or 'Blinky Nano' ever got set off by the Bomb Squad!!!

 

Forsooth, & verily.

~*

 

Actually, I seem to recall a story of a film canister being shot by a local LEO to "disable the possible threat".

 

WELL then, Urkz & CM -- I stands corrected.

I wasn't including the 'Idjit Factor'.

 

It's cell phones, y'all. If those same kneejerk-tards had to git off they asinine & actually walk somewhere & be troubled to have to ask permission to use someone's telephone to call the cops, we'd not hear one in a hundred of these stories.

 

Finger puppets.

Finger puppets.

~*

[+Castle Mischief]

It is my guess that the above scenario played out here... when the alert was raised the one manager who had given permission was not on duty, and nobody else knew about it.

 

Knowing Wal-Mart managers as well as I do (1991-94 Dept08, Store 434), the more likely scenario is that once the cops were called they never once made an effort to acknowledge any participation in the hiding of said cache. SOP for management in that situation is to bend over backwards and to distance the store from any potential bad press. Even if the cops/bomb squad talked to the exact same Store Manager (the "M1" as they are called) I wouldn't expect him to go to bat for the safety of the container. The response would be something along the lines of "whatever you think is best, you're in charge".

 

Add to that if the container was found in the middle of the parking lot several yards away from the initial hiding spot then how could the manager even be sure it's the same container they were shown and told about?

 

That's assuming the manager was even asked or consulted in any way at all.

[+Castle Mischief]

It's cell phones, y'all. If those same kneejerk-tards had to git off they asinine & actually walk somewhere & be troubled to have to ask permission to use someone's telephone to call the cops, we'd not hear one in a hundred of these stories.

 

I agree.

 

It's a by-product of the always-connected, instant-access-vs-long-term-retention age we live in.

 

We've become a nation of cyborg Gladys Kravitz drones.

[+team moxiepup]

Should we start a pool on when WallyWorld issues a coporate policy against LPCs?

Was not an LPC

OK, my mistake. But looking at the video link, it appeared to be blown up in the middle of the parking lot. Did they really pick it up and move it before blowing it up?? This is SOP??

 

They would use a robot to move it.

 

What they need is a robot that can open a cache container, and peer inside.

 

(Note the "urban camo" on this cache.)

[+yawppy]

Quick in out comment on the geo cache sticker actually a quote to add to the fire:

 

"Assistant Fire Chief Mike Winter added that the stickers identifying a container as a geocache aren't going to change the way the bomb squad deals with them. Anyone could put those stickers on, Winter said, possibly to disguise an ..."

Bomb Squad Finds another G-cache

 

So I really do not think they are going to stop just because of a label, 9/11 has changed everyday life.

 

The container can be clear, labeled clearly, have permission from god, it will not matter. Muggle spots it, Ka Boom.

 

800 numbers and educating 1st responders may help, doubtful, sure everyone can agree, as kids we all love to blow up stuff, and bomb squads are full of them kids.

 

One of the things that i enjoy from this hobby, has been the stealthiness of it. The amazement that I never knew about this till this past Summer, as widely broad casted as this hobby is, there are still many muggles ,STEALTH!

 

Stealth is an intrical part of this hobby, hide your stash well, and finders hide it as found, no more laying sticks in a tell tell manner, and just keep it hidden, and practice good stealth!

[Clan Riffster]

9/11 has changed everyday life.

I would say it was media/government hype that changed everyday life, not 9-11.

Your 'gubment' wants you to be afraid. That should scare you more than any bomb.

 

Muggle spots it, Ka Boom.

Actually, it's usually a bit more complicated than that. The steps that usually take place are:

1. Muggle spots cache.
   
2. Muggle is brain dead, and decides cache is a bomb.
   
3. Muggle calls law enforcement.
   
4. Dispatcher sends an initial responder to evaluate the scene.
   
5. Initial responder is equally brain dead.
   
6. Initial responder calls their supervisor, telling them they think the "device" is "suspicious"
   
7. Supervisor responds to verify.
   
8. Supervisor is as brain dead as everybody else on scene.
   
9. Supervisor activates EOD.
   
10. EOD responds.
    
11. Ka-Boom!
    

If, at any time during that imaginary incident I just related, someone capable of rubbing two brain cells together had shown up, the scenario could've ended in a much different manner. Imagine this:

1. Muggle spots cache.
   
2. Muggle checks it out, thinks "Hey, this is kewl!" and signs up for an account.
   
3. No Ka-Boom
   

or

1. Muggle spots cache.
   
2. Muggle is brain dead, and decides cache is a bomb.
   
3. Muggle calls law enforcement.
   
4. Dispatcher sends an initial responder to evaluate the scene.
   
5. Initial responder checks it out, determines it's a cache and advises Dispatch that the object is not suspicious.
   
6. No Ka-Boom!
   

Or even

1. Muggle spots cache.
   
2. Muggle is brain dead, and decides cache is a bomb.
   
3. Muggle calls law enforcement.
   
4. Dispatcher sends an initial responder to evaluate the scene.
   
5. Initial responder is equally brain dead.
   
6. Initial responder calls their supervisor, telling them they think the "device" is "suspicious"
   
7. Supervisor responds to verify.
   
8. Supervisor sees it's a cache, smacks the initial responded upside the head and tells him to educate himself.
   
9. Supervisor tells Dispatch the object is not suspicious
   
10. No Ka-Boom!
    

[+Frank Broughton]

Typically, it's the first responder who sets the tone for the incident. If Officer Bubba sees a Tupperware and thinks, "Hot Diggity! Them there Al Kay-dah fellers are tryin' to blow up a pine tree!!", it's likely he will escalate the incident to an EOD response. If Deputy Riffster shows up and says, "Hey, there's a cache that's not in my Garmin. Whoo Hoo!! I get a smiley on duty!!" then the incident stops right there. Permission rarely enters into the picture.

 

LOL!!! Hot Diggity - I nominate this post for post of the year. Had me laughing out loud for real!

[+emtfire10]

Just to give an update, I met with the investigators from PSP sometime back. Everything was explained pertaining to the original placement, permission, intent & what ever else of the cache. No problems exsist as of now. My only "shock" pertaining to Geocaching & LEOs is that quite from the Pa area are not aware of geocaching at all, & it has been out for what approx 8-9 yrs?

[Clan Riffster]

My only "shock" pertaining to Geocaching & LEOs is that quite from the Pa area are not aware of geocaching at all, & it has been out for what approx 8-9 yrs?

I love T-shirts, and I have them printed at a local shop, with geocentric sayings. Whenever I'm in training, I get a bunch of LEOs asking, "What the heck is geocaching?" I suspect their lack of knowledge stems from several sources, to include:

 

This is not yet a completely mainstream activity. It hasn't become part of the collective knowledge.

 

The law enforcement business has a high turnover rate. If you were to inform an entire department about the game on a certain date, in a very short time the percentage of cops who knew about the game would drop. As time goes by, this percentage would continue to drop, until only the old timers were part of the group that was originally informed. If these folks aren't cachers, it's likely that they won't pass their knowledge about the game on to their peers unless asked.

[golfgunny]

When will civilian EOD personnel get on board with using xray? It's not like it's really all that new of an idea...Gotta be cleaner and safer than blowing stuff up in the wally world parking lot too.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

OK, a couple of things I think of each time I see another of these stories...

 

Job security...If the Bomb Squad didn't blow up every "Suspicious" package they get called to, we as communities would quickly see that there is no need to fund a Bomb Squad everywhere. They HAVE to blow things up, or they will be out of business, out of the budget, and out of all that overtime/hazard pay.

 

Roots...Many of the persons on the Bomd Squad prabably have experience in the military where "Suspicious" packages REALLY were Bombs. If they come out of places like Iraq and Afghanistanm you would expect them to react in the same way they did there.

 

Now, why does the average paranoid joe on the street think a Geocache is "Suspicious" but you could actually place a harmful device inside any empty cardboard box/paper bag, and no one would even think of it??? Did I read a story once about them blowing up someones brown bag lunch on a park bench?? What would happen if someone called in a dirty diaper as a suspicious package?? That might be an ideal place to hide a real device??

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

When will civilian EOD personnel get on board with using xray? It's not like it's really all that new of an idea...Gotta be cleaner and safer than blowing stuff up in the wally world parking lot too.

Right, but a high profile story like this guarantees their funding in next years budget!! Think of all those TERRIFIED people who got evacuated...They feel so safe now.