bomb squad madness again

3.3k · June 8, 2009

The the same way people have created standard geocaching labels and info sheets do we need to create a "land manager docuement" (for lack of a better term). If so is anyone reading this willing help to create one?

Are you suggesting we simply inform land stewards we are using their land instead of asking permission?

In theory every land owner is aware of the caches on thier property... but, I suspect that's not necessarily true in practice.

I think the issue is on public lands, on private land, I think there usualy is permission (I guess parking lots don't usualy have permission do they, but most people consider them public land, even though they are not). The problem is there are multiple land stewarts or managers for most public land (police, by-law enforcment, park wardent, wildlife officer etc.). Unless all the veriouse groups are aware of each cache, there will always be false alarms.

6.5k · June 8, 2009

Too many of the real life ones are more concerned about resting so they have energy for their second job.

Wow, that's pretty uncalled for and unecessary.

4.2k · June 8, 2009

Too many of the real life ones are more concerned about resting so they have energy for their second job.

Wow, that's pretty uncalled for and unecessary.

I think you took the comment the wrong way. Sadly, most cops are not paid enough to survive on a single job income.

1.1k · June 8, 2009

Sadly, most cops are not paid enough to survive on a single job income.

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouth...LG12000003.html

National average is 49,000$. I think it's hard to argue that this is not a livable wage.

(I don't begrudge a cop a good wage - they do an important job)

June 8, 2009

The the same way people have created standard geocaching labels and info sheets do we need to create a "land manager docuement" (for lack of a better term). If so is anyone reading this willing help to create one?

Are you suggesting we simply inform land stewards we are using their land instead of asking permission?

I'm not suggesting changing how we ask for permission. I'm suggesting that some sort of simple FYI type document could be created that we could ask geocachers to give to whoever is managing the land a cache is on. Since my post might not have been clear I'll use an example to illustrate.

I want put a geocache on property that's owned by my township. I track down the person authorized to make the decision, he says it OK, then goes back to doing whatever he does and forgets all about me. A few months later a field worker is laying raccoon traps, spots the geocache, calls the marines, police or aquaman who destroy the cache.

OR

The field worker finds a geocache while laying raccoon traps and is about to call the marines, police or aquaman and remembers a politely worded letter with some eye catching graphic attached to the bulletin board in the break room, realizes it's a geocache.

June 8, 2009

Imagine what they do in the truly secret places. The places we don't know the names of.

Hah true.. although I think here it's more the sheer numbers of very smart, very odd people all piled into a place that was picked to be remote and was secret until after WWII that combines for some hilarity. The grocery store is constantly packed with these oddballs behaving oddly (totally rationally to them)... today we were walking by a park where this dad was putting his baby down the slide catching him at the bottom... totally normal until we remarked "good catch!" and he replied that it wasn't really necessary and rattled off about the coefficient of friction... We walked on with a smile and an "only here!"

I just felt the need to reply to this (no real point). My brother inlaw is one of the type of guys you're talking about (yes he is a rocket scientist). I was playing with lazier pointer watching his cat go nuts trying to catch the dot. He comes into the room ask to see it, stares at the dot on the wall for a few minutes and tosses it back to me with the comment "you got ripped off, it's not a real lazier the beam spreads slightly". Every time I use it in presentation I have to keep from laughing.

June 8, 2009

FWIW I attended a five-day disaster planning course a few weeks ago put on by the Department of Homeland Security (IS-300&400) that was attended by 28 Police and Fire Department Chiefs from departments all over central Alabama.

I talked about the possibility of the perceived threat of geocaches popping up on their radar (interestingly, as many thousands of caches as are hidden around central Alabama only one of the Police Chiefs had heard of the game) and ALL of them agreed that if a cache is ever brought to their attention it will be treated as a threat until proven differently.

Also, the Helena AL Chief of Police didn't know about the game but assured me that geocaching would not be looked upon kindly in his town, promising that if a geocacher were stopped poking around behind his Wal-Mart there would be unpleasant results.

There are at least 500 caches within his city limits, including one behind 'his' Wal-Mart!

Having been friends with some very good cops and a few bad ones, I'm glad that most bad cops are also very lazy. I asked my neighbour, who is retired from NYC mounted unit what his take was on geocaching (once I explained it to him) his reaction was "if they're not having sex in public, doing or selling drugs, or destroying something I wouldn't have time to care".

Imagine if this guy really was on the lookout for geocachers? How dare people be out in public doing something completely legal.

24.7k · June 8, 2009

The the same way people have created standard geocaching labels and info sheets do we need to create a "land manager docuement" (for lack of a better term). If so is anyone reading this willing help to create one?

Are you suggesting we simply inform land stewards we are using their land instead of asking permission?

I'm not suggesting changing how we ask for permission. I'm suggesting that some sort of simple FYI type document could be created that we could ask geocachers to give to whoever is managing the land a cache is on. Since my post might not have been clear I'll use an example to illustrate.

I want put a geocache on property that's owned by my township. I track down the person authorized to make the decision, he says it OK, then goes back to doing whatever he does and forgets all about me. A few months later a field worker is laying raccoon traps, spots the geocache, calls the marines, police or aquaman who destroy the cache.

OR

The field worker finds a geocache while laying raccoon traps and is about to call the marines, police or aquaman and remembers a politely worded letter with some eye catching graphic attached to the bulletin board in the break room, realizes it's a geocache.

Or: The person sent to check on the racoon traps didn't read the memo and we are at your first scenario. Perfect information perfectly delivered to perfect people gets you haphazard results. Take out the perfect in the system and it gets worse. It's ever so much easier to hide caches so the imperfect people with imperfect knowledge, and imperfect intentions, don't make a call to begin with. Not that your method wouldn't help. Just not as much as you might think.

June 8, 2009

Or: The person sent to check on the racoon traps didn't read the memo and we are at your first scenario. Perfect information perfectly delivered to perfect people gets you haphazard results. Take out the perfect in the system and it gets worse. It's ever so much easier to hide caches so the imperfect people with imperfect knowledge, and imperfect intentions, don't make a call to begin with. Not that your method wouldn't help. Just not as much as you might think.

I'm under no illusion that what I'm suggesting would be a perfect solution, or would bring about world peace, get geocaching made an Olympic sport or prove the existence of aquaman. The upside of what I'm recommending is that it has no negative impact (doesn't make geocachers look bad), would take very little effort, and could potentially have some positive impact.

If you look at more organized groups such as the boy scouts or running clubs they usually put more effort into community outreach then may be needed. Some scouts were some group activity in a park near my house and I think they had more signs posted then people attending. I can only assume these groups put this effort because it's helpful.

6.7k · June 8, 2009

Or: The person sent to check on the racoon traps didn't read the memo and we are at your first scenario. Perfect information perfectly delivered to perfect people gets you haphazard results. Take out the perfect in the system and it gets worse. It's ever so much easier to hide caches so the imperfect people with imperfect knowledge, and imperfect intentions, don't make a call to begin with. Not that your method wouldn't help. Just not as much as you might think.

I'm under no illusion that what I'm suggesting would be a perfect solution, or would bring about world peace, get geocaching made an Olympic sport or prove the existence of aquaman. The upside of what I'm recommending is that it has no negative impact (doesn't make geocachers look bad), would take very little effort, and could potentially have some positive impact.

If you look at more organized groups such as the boy scouts or running clubs they usually put more effort into community outreach then may be needed. Some scouts were some group activity in a park near my house and I think they had more signs posted then people attending. I can only assume these groups put this effort because it's helpful.

While a document to hand to land owners may help with relations between land owners and geocachers it will not likely have any effect on the number of caches detonated by the bomb squads of the world. The brochure from G.U. has always worked for me when I talk to a land owner/manager.

4.2k · June 8, 2009

Sadly, most cops are not paid enough to survive on a single job income.

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouth...LG12000003.html

National average is 49,000$. I think it's hard to argue that this is not a livable wage.

(I don't begrudge a cop a good wage - they do an important job)

Kind of depends on what part of the country you're in doesn't it? Most of locals that I've talked to started out making about half that on their first year in uniform. I worked a night-shift temp job at a box factory once with a patrol cop that only made $25K and had to supplement that with the $8 an hour job that we were doing.

June 9, 2009

Sadly, most cops are not paid enough to survive on a single job income.

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouth...LG12000003.html

National average is 49,000$. I think it's hard to argue that this is not a livable wage.

(I don't begrudge a cop a good wage - they do an important job)

Kind of depends on what part of the country you're in doesn't it? Most of locals that I've talked to started out making about half that on their first year in uniform. I worked a night-shift temp job at a box factory once with a patrol cop that only made $25K and had to supplement that with the $8 an hour job that we were doing.

Seriously two pages and neither of these have shown up?

(Second image removed by moderator, family friendly please.)

Edited June 9, 2009 by mtn-man

June 9, 2009

Sadly, most cops are not paid enough to survive on a single job income.

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouth...LG12000003.html

National average is 49,000$. I think it's hard to argue that this is not a livable wage.

(I don't begrudge a cop a good wage - they do an important job)

Kind of depends on what part of the country you're in doesn't it? Most of locals that I've talked to started out making about half that on their first year in uniform. I worked a night-shift temp job at a box factory once with a patrol cop that only made $25K and had to supplement that with the $8 an hour job that we were doing.

Seriously two pages and neither of these have shown up?

(Second image removed by moderator, family friendly please.)

Sorry folks, my bad on the cuss word on the aforementioned removed pic... that is not the same pic I used to have and I didn't bother reading it until I got the pm.

once again sorry.

June 9, 2009

I guess it would be snarky to suggest looking for the previous twenty or so threads like this, so just let me say:

Put yourself in the bomb tech guys shoes.

You get a callout from your command to investigate a suspicious container.

When you get there and look it has a geocaching sticker on it.

While you're x-raying it someone tells you "This website says that there is something called a geocache hidden here somewhere"

Now, are you going to walk over and pick it up?

Not if you want to STAY in your shoes!

There are old bomb techs and bold bomb techs, but there are no old bold bomb techs!

Excellent point!!!!!

1.2k · June 10, 2009

Too many of the real life ones are more concerned about resting so they have energy for their second job.

Wow, that's pretty uncalled for and unecessary.

The truth often hurts..... sorry.

2.4k · June 10, 2009

I guess it would be snarky to suggest looking for the previous twenty or so threads like this, so just let me say:

Put yourself in the bomb tech guys shoes.

You get a callout from your command to investigate a suspicious container.

When you get there and look it has a geocaching sticker on it.

While you're x-raying it someone tells you "This website says that there is something called a geocache hidden here somewhere"

Now, are you going to walk over and pick it up?

Not if you want to STAY in your shoes!

There are old bomb techs and bold bomb techs, but there are no old bold bomb techs!

I'd say, they should call their local geocaching rep and see if THEY want to contact the cache OWNER and have them come pick it up.

I actually DID contact my local police and tell them i'd be happy to be a local geocaching rep and that I'd be happy to come talk to them about geocaching, etc. . The woman said she'd get back to me but she never did.

I guess they want the bomb squad to have something to practice on.

They've got to get some excitement somewhere.

(Perhaps we could get them to find caches for exctitement instead?)

19k · June 10, 2009

I actually DID contact my local police and tell them i'd be happy to be a local geocaching rep and that I'd be happy to come talk to them about geocaching, etc. . The woman said she'd get back to me but she never did.

I guess they want the bomb squad to have something to practice on.

Yup. We've heard in other threads that the police have had bulletins that they've never bothered to read, too. Come on, guys... it TWO THOUSAND AND NINE and we are now on our THIRD PRESIDENT since selective availability was turned off. You should all be aware of this activity by now! Remember the phrase, "ignorance is no excuse"? That works both ways.

June 10, 2009

I'm sure I'm late in posting in this thread but this story seems to fit this explosive topic.

4.8k · June 10, 2009

I'm sure I'm late in posting in this thread but this story seems to fit this explosive topic.

That story was BS. The bomb squad has the ability to sniff the "device" for explosive content. Nobody would be held for hours at an airport for a suspected bomb. They would have been detained elsewhere.

There are more holes but you get the jist.

June 10, 2009

I guess it would be snarky to suggest looking for the previous twenty or so threads like this, so just let me say:

Put yourself in the bomb tech guys shoes.

You get a callout from your command to investigate a suspicious container.

When you get there and look it has a geocaching sticker on it.

While you're x-raying it someone tells you "This website says that there is something called a geocache hidden here somewhere"

Now, are you going to walk over and pick it up?

Not if you want to STAY in your shoes!

There are old bomb techs and bold bomb techs, but there are no old bold bomb techs!

I'd say, they should call their local geocaching rep and see if THEY want to contact the cache OWNER and have them come pick it up.

I actually DID contact my local police and tell them i'd be happy to be a local geocaching rep and that I'd be happy to come talk to them about geocaching, etc. . The woman said she'd get back to me but she never did.

I guess they want the bomb squad to have something to practice on.

They've got to get some excitement somewhere.

(Perhaps we could get them to find caches for exctitement instead?)

That comment is careless an naive. Lets reword it.

I guess the Geocacher placed the cache where the police would find it so that they could get the exitement of seeing it being blown up. Geocacher have to get their excitement somewhere.

The police have plenty of excitemet on their jobs. Much of it is the kind of excitement that most of us would never want to experience. They do a very dangerous job and can't afford to take chances. If something looks like it could be a bomb in disguise it gets treated as a bomb. To do it any other way would endanger the public that the LFO's are sworn to protect. It also endangers the law enforcement officers. It would seem many in this forum could care less about the safety of the very officers that protect them.

June 10, 2009

Why is everyone so afraid that every camouflaged box or object HAS to be a bomb or something else harmful. How often do we have bombs going off in this country? How often do people actually run across a bomb?

If they find a suspicious container in a suspicious location, do they dare just assume that it's a cache? Do they dare just open it up to check? I personally think not on both counts.

Think about this before you answer: If they keep blowing up suspicious containers and finding that they're just caches, it might upset some cache owners but it won't do much harm to geocaching in general. But if a couple of actual bombs are ever assumed to be caches and blow up in someone's face, that could easily give our activity a black eye that may never go away.

Pete

4.2k · June 10, 2009

If something looks like it could be a bomb in disguise it gets treated as a bomb.

That's a pretty open-ended description. It looks like a bomb... in disguise! :grin:

I'm waiting for the day when somebody decides that a newspaper box, mail box or vending machine looks like a bomb in disguise.

4.2k · June 10, 2009

But if a couple of actual bombs are ever assumed to be caches and blow up in someone's face, that could easily give our activity a black eye that may never go away.

Pete

Do you feel that the US Postal Service is currently wearing a black eye that has never gone away? UPS? FedEx? Fertilizer? Rental Vans? Commercial Boeing aircraft?

June 10, 2009

If something looks like it could be a bomb in disguise it gets treated as a bomb.

That's a pretty open-ended description. It looks like a bomb... in disguise!

I'm waiting for the day when somebody decides that a newspaper box, mail box or vending machine looks like a bomb in disguise.

So you assume that bombs will always look like bombs? Little bundles of dynamite with a ticking clock? Of possibly carrying a label that reads "BOMB"?

There will be a day when a newspaper box, mail box or vending machine gets treated as a bomb and will be dealt with by someone who is more interested in public safety than they are about offending the owner of the item. You should be glad when they do because someone who wants to do damage with a bomb probably won't make it look like a bomb.

June 10, 2009

But if a couple of actual bombs are ever assumed to be caches and blow up in someone's face, that could easily give our activity a black eye that may never go away.

Pete

Do you feel that the US Postal Service is currently wearing a black eye that has never gone away? UPS? FedEx? Fertilizer? Rental Vans? Commercial Boeing aircraft?

When has the US Postal Service, UPS, FedEX, Fertilizer, Rental Vans of Commercial Boeing aircraft ever assumed an actual bomb was a cache and had them blow up in someone's face?

19k · June 10, 2009

So you assume that bombs will always look like bombs? Little bundles of dynamite with a ticking clock? Of possibly carrying a label that reads "BOMB"?

Nope... they say "ACME":

or, they might look more like this:

Edited June 10, 2009 by knowschad

4.2k · June 10, 2009

If something looks like it could be a bomb in disguise it gets treated as a bomb.

That's a pretty open-ended description. It looks like a bomb... in disguise!

I'm waiting for the day when somebody decides that a newspaper box, mail box or vending machine looks like a bomb in disguise.

So you assume that bombs will always look like bombs? Little bundles of dynamite with a ticking clock? Of possibly carrying a label that reads "BOMB"?

There will be a day when a newspaper box, mail box or vending machine gets treated as a bomb and will be dealt with by someone who is more interested in public safety than they are about offending the owner of the item. You should be glad when they do because someone who wants to do damage with a bomb probably won't make it look like a bomb.

I can't tell which you are saying:

a) A bomb could be anything

A bomb in disguise looks like a particular object

Because you've used the words "looks like it could be a bomb in disguise" and "someone who wants to do damage with a bomb probably won't make it look like a bomb".

Which is it? Are we to assume that there is some sort of "bomb-in-disguise looking object"? That would be helpful. However if bombs don't look like bombs then they could be anything. So what do you do with that? Maybe there should be some sort of way to detect a explosive device then perhaps those could be used to determine if indeed, a random object is a bomb or not.

My point is this: vending machines, newspaper boxes, USPS mail boxes will not be blown up as often as caches because ownership is clear and obvious. When an ammo can/film canister/bison tube/Tupperware box is found in the woods it is much easier to blow it up as an abandoned object in the woods and then look for the owner afterwards (and fine/press charges) because these things are just "abandoned suspicious packages/containers in the woods". There are no PR issues when it comes to blowing up a cache and often it is the cache hider that gets the negative press, permission granted or not.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Castle Mischief

4.2k · June 10, 2009

But if a couple of actual bombs are ever assumed to be caches and blow up in someone's face, that could easily give our activity a black eye that may never go away.

Pete

Do you feel that the US Postal Service is currently wearing a black eye that has never gone away? UPS? FedEx? Fertilizer? Rental Vans? Commercial Boeing aircraft?

When has the US Postal Service, UPS, FedEX, Fertilizer, Rental Vans of Commercial Boeing aircraft ever assumed an actual bomb was a cache and had them blow up in someone's face?

I never said that did I? You're saying that some hypothetical actual cache gets used as a bomb and hurts/kills somebody. Sure, that's possible. Just as possible as any number of things being used as a carrier for a bomb. Actually there are endless other things that are better suited to be used as a hidey hole for a bomb. But let's bring out the mythical "one day some nut is going to put a bomb in a cache and then you'll all see the light" argument. Sure.

My question was, do you feel that the US Postal Service is suffering a black eye for the letter bombs and anthrax that they delivered? Same for UPS and FedEx?

Do you feel that rental vans and fertilizer has a black eye for their contribution to the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma?

Do you feel that commercial aircraft has a black eye for the part they played in a number of horrible acts that have occurred in the air or on the ground as a result of air travel?

24.7k · June 10, 2009

...I can't tell which you are saying:

a) A bomb could be anything

A bomb in disguise looks like a particular object...

Both are accurate.

4.2k · June 10, 2009

...I can't tell which you are saying:

a) A bomb could be anything

A bomb in disguise looks like a particular object...

Both are accurate.

My wording stunk. Maybe I should have said:

a) A bomb could look like anything

A "bomb in disguise" has a distinct (and ironically self-defeating) appearance that marks it as a "bomb in disguise"

Does your assessment still hold true?

24.7k · June 10, 2009

...I can't tell which you are saying:

a) A bomb could be anything

A bomb in disguise looks like a particular object...

Both are accurate.

My wording stunk. Maybe I should have said:

a) A bomb could look like anything

A "bomb in disguise" has a distinct (and ironically self-defeating) appearance that marks it as a "bomb in disguise"

Does your assessment still hold true?

Not really. Ironicly self defeating bomb camo is a tough thing to gage. It's enough to stick with A.

June 10, 2009

Some good points being made here. We as responsible geocachers and cache owners can be proactive and potentially help reduce the number of false alarms by our geocaches from the bomb squads. Remember that the addition of a sticker, costing around $1, or writing on the outside, or in some other way on the outside of a cache, identifying it as a geocache and where to go for more info can go a long way in preventing hysteria in the public. I'll have to say that most of the caches that I have found are not identified on the outside as geocaches and probably only half are identified on the inside as such.

Also, as a note on some of the discussion on private property, I'd bet that most caches hidden on private property are hidden without permission, all the parking lot hides notwithstanding. I've come across a lot of hides right next to or after walking past signage proclaiming "Private Property, No Trespassing, No Loitering" etc., often. Just the other day, I was actually "caught" by a property owner while standing at a loading dock to their empty building (not abandoned) just recently; they know about geocaching, but had no idea that someone had hidden a cache on their property.

9.3k · June 10, 2009

If they find a suspicious container in a suspicious location, do they dare just assume that it's a cache? Do they dare just open it up to check? I personally think not on both counts.

Isn't that what you've done, at least 114 times? :grin:

June 11, 2009

If they find a suspicious container in a suspicious location, do they dare just assume that it's a cache? Do they dare just open it up to check? I personally think not on both counts.

Isn't that what you've done, at least 114 times?

Not in my book, I didn't. I went looking for those caches as a geocacher. The caches were at or very near the published coordinates so I had no practical reason to be suspicious of the cache or where it was located.

And that's a heck of a lot different than someone with no knowledge of geocaching finding a cache. It would be a complete mystery to them until they opened it up, and I can't exactly fault 'em if they weren't inclined to do that.

Pete

Edited June 11, 2009 by Curioddity

19k · June 11, 2009

Some good points being made here. We as responsible geocachers and cache owners can be proactive and potentially help reduce the number of false alarms by our geocaches from the bomb squads. Remember that the addition of a sticker, costing around $1,

The problem with those stickers is that they sort of defeat the whole purpose of all the careful camouflaging we try to do, don't they? "HEY THERE!!!!! ... this thing that you don't see is really a harmless geocache, so please ignore it"

Ditto with clear containers. Boring.....

Edited June 11, 2009 by knowschad

June 11, 2009

The problem with those stickers is that they sort of defeat the whole purpose of all the careful camouflaging we try to do, don't they? "HEY THERE!!!!! ... this thing that you don't see is really a harmless geocache, so please ignore it"

Ditto with clear containers. Boring.....

I think a lot of the differences in ideas about cache containers and cammo have their roots in ecosystems/climate zones that people live in. While cammo might be important there for you in a terrain dominated by glacial features, here in northern New Mexcio, we live in a much more arid and mountainous terrain. Here our cache locations in the wilderness can be incredibly difficult while being a clear lock n lock with a red lid. While there, often probably cammo is necessary. Here we can find a dozen places to stash a full on ammo can in various crevices, fissures and cavelets making the actual camouflage of the container sorta trivial. We're perhaps lucky as hiders here and you're perhaps lucky as finders there where it takes a really special bit of cammo to make a good hide.

These are generalizations and I am certain that there are good spots to put un-cammoed hides there and i've seen plenty of wonderful piles of rocks (sorry Chuckwagon) but on the whole, I think the geography of the area lends itself to not having to work as hard to hide a cache than minnesota. I'm able to clearly label my caches as geocaches yet have them totally hidden without a lot of effort. I would imagine that it takes a lot more effort to do the same (if possible at all) there.

I wonder if a lot of the arguments that seem to come up here are because people are coming at the game from greatly varying physical locations and the base underlying assumptions about everything unsaid are different.

just thinking :grin:

19k · June 11, 2009

The problem with those stickers is that they sort of defeat the whole purpose of all the careful camouflaging we try to do, don't they? "HEY THERE!!!!! ... this thing that you don't see is really a harmless geocache, so please ignore it"

Ditto with clear containers. Boring.....

I think a lot of the differences in ideas about cache containers and cammo have their roots in ecosystems/climate zones that people live in. While cammo might be important there for you in a terrain dominated by glacial features, here in northern New Mexcio, we live in a much more arid and mountainous terrain. Here our cache locations in the wilderness can be incredibly difficult while being a clear lock n lock with a red lid. While there, often probably cammo is necessary. Here we can find a dozen places to stash a full on ammo can in various crevices, fissures and cavelets making the actual camouflage of the container sorta trivial. We're perhaps lucky as hiders here and you're perhaps lucky as finders there where it takes a really special bit of cammo to make a good hide.

These are generalizations and I am certain that there are good spots to put un-cammoed hides there and i've seen plenty of wonderful piles of rocks (sorry Chuckwagon) but on the whole, I think the geography of the area lends itself to not having to work as hard to hide a cache than minnesota. I'm able to clearly label my caches as geocaches yet have them totally hidden without a lot of effort. I would imagine that it takes a lot more effort to do the same (if possible at all) there.

I wonder if a lot of the arguments that seem to come up here are because people are coming at the game from greatly varying physical locations and the base underlying assumptions about everything unsaid are different.

just thinking

I spent seven years in the Four-Corners area during the 80's, working in the gas and oil fields, and I know exactly what you're talking about. Oh, how I would love to hide (or hunt) some caches in Chaco Canyon or the Jemez Springs area!

But my point remains... if you make it so obvious that it is a geocache that even muggles and bomb squads can tell at a glance... well, what fun is that?

June 11, 2009

But my point remains... if you make it so obvious that it is a geocache that even muggles and bomb squads can tell at a glance... well, what fun is that?

It's a good point and I guess in the cases I mentioned the cammo is the natural environment itself. Once the person actually looks in the right spot, they can see the cache. I guess there is an advantage to sorta having the markings underneath the cammo in this case :grin: However in places where placing a well hidden cache is harder, it's a good point that the fun is in the actual cammo and hiding in plain sight.

I think I was mostly trying to make a point about the fact that a lot of these arguments about what would make a good container or what would make a neat cammo or etc etc etc have a lot to do with the environment in which people are caching and their consequent experiences

9.3k · June 11, 2009

what would make a good container or what would make a neat cammo or etc etc etc have a lot to do with the environment in which people are caching

True Dat!

(Did I just say that? Sigh... There's too dang many teenagers in our house!)

I put a lot of effort into physical camo for my ammo cans. I bet they'd stand out like a sore thumb out west.

4.2k · June 11, 2009

Some good points being made here. We as responsible geocachers and cache owners can be proactive and potentially help reduce the number of false alarms by our geocaches from the bomb squads. Remember that the addition of a sticker, costing around $1, or writing on the outside, or in some other way on the outside of a cache, identifying it as a geocache and where to go for more info can go a long way in preventing hysteria in the public. I'll have to say that most of the caches that I have found are not identified on the outside as geocaches and probably only half are identified on the inside as such.

Also, as a note on some of the discussion on private property, I'd bet that most caches hidden on private property are hidden without permission, all the parking lot hides notwithstanding. I've come across a lot of hides right next to or after walking past signage proclaiming "Private Property, No Trespassing, No Loitering" etc., often. Just the other day, I was actually "caught" by a property owner while standing at a loading dock to their empty building (not abandoned) just recently; they know about geocaching, but had no idea that someone had hidden a cache on their property.

I agree with you to a point. However, clearly marked containers placed with explicit permission have been found and destroyed in the past by bomb squads doing their job. Clan Riffster has outlined the progression of events leading up to cache 'splosion. Once it reaches a critical point, there's seldom any going back.

Also- you saw the no trespassing signs and continued the hunt...?

24.7k · June 11, 2009

Some good points being made here. We as responsible geocachers and cache owners can be proactive and potentially help reduce the number of false alarms by our geocaches from the bomb squads. Remember that the addition of a sticker, costing around $1, or writing on the outside, or in some other way on the outside of a cache, identifying it as a geocache and where to go for more info can go a long way in preventing hysteria in the public....

Three Points.

First, this one driven home by state police. If a one dollar sticker can alleviate public hysteria and have them trust in the container, then the folks who make bombs will soon figure it out and invest that buck as cheap insurnace.

The second point. Caches are hidden in different locations than bombs. The goal of a cache owner and the goal of a bomb maker are completely different. The single best thing we as cachers can do to alleviate suspicion is hide the caches so they are not found by muggles. When a muggle can't find the cache they can't report it.

The third point. Permission is a non issue when a call is made.

June 11, 2009

Three Points.

First, this one driven home by state police. If a one dollar sticker can alleviate public hysteria and have them trust in the container, then the folks who make bombs will soon figure it out and invest that buck as cheap insurnace.

The only problem I have with your first point is that it doesn't come into play until the bad guys use a geocache for a bomb first. That hasn't happen and most likely won't happen unless/until geocaching becomes so popular that almost everyone is doing it. Using a geocache to hurt people still wouldn't make much sense since explosives and triggering devices don't last forever and would most likely become duds or detonate when no one is around.

4.2k · June 11, 2009

...explosives and triggering devices don't last forever and would most likely become duds or detonate when no one is around.

Careful. There are some cases of pretty old munitions exploding many years after their date of manufacture.

June 11, 2009

...explosives and triggering devices don't last forever and would most likely become duds or detonate when no one is around.

Careful. There are some cases of pretty old munitions exploding many years after their date of manufacture.

I didn't think that statement through completely. I'm not planing to test my theory by walking in a landmine field. However I doubt (and hope) a nutcase in his basement will come up with anything with a reliable shelf life. Granted my experience with explosive is limited to 4th of July parties and a couple of conversations with a special effects/pyrotechnics pro.

9.3k · June 12, 2009

There are some cases of pretty old munitions exploding many years after their date of manufacture.

That was something rather awe inspiring about my tour of duty in Korea, '82 to '83.

When monsoon season arrived, I could hear what I swore were muffled explosions in the distance.

My CO told me they were Korean War era landmines cooking off.

It was a very strange feeling knowing something as deadly as a landmine had been sitting around for 40 years or so waiting on Momma Nature to make them go boom. :rolleyes:

24.7k · June 12, 2009

I actually DID contact my local police and tell them i'd be happy to be a local geocaching rep and that I'd be happy to come talk to them about geocaching, etc. . The woman said she'd get back to me but she never did.

I guess they want the bomb squad to have something to practice on.

Yup. We've heard in other threads that the police have had bulletins that they've never bothered to read, too. Come on, guys... it TWO THOUSAND AND NINE and we are now on our THIRD PRESIDENT since selective availability was turned off. You should all be aware of this activity by now! Remember the phrase, "ignorance is no excuse"? That works both ways.

Actually this just supports my entire "geocaching is a fun family activity." stand. If the police can't be bothered before, while the chief may like to rant and rally after an incident, more than a few of us have tried and been given the official version of "talk to the hand" Meaning they have more important things to worry about than a fun family activity. They just need to be reminded every now and then when they blow one up out of concern that a non family friendly activity may be taking place.

June 12, 2009

On the using stickers or whatever until some crazy starts to use them as well in bomb making; what use would one have in planting a bomb that only one person will find? An ammo box hide is normally not going to be in an urban area where there could potentially numerous victims. The hides in urban areas are normally going to be those fabulous altoids tins, film canisters, or nanos hidden under the stairs. Those aren't going to be confused for bombs if accidentally discovered, therefore won't benefit from being identified as a cache on the outside.

I think the bottom line here is; It's the larger caches that are of concern, not tins of altoids. If your caches are being accidentally found by kids, mothers, or the police and being mistaken for bombs, you need to do a better job of camouflaging and hiding them.

(and why yes, I did continue on to the hides after reading the no trespassing signs. What, do you think a little sign is going to keep me away? Either way, it's not a good idea. Neither is putting knives in caches. I have removed a few.)

4.2k · June 12, 2009

The hides in urban areas are normally going to be those fabulous altoids tins, film canisters, or nanos hidden under the stairs. Those aren't going to be confused for bombs if accidentally discovered, therefore won't benefit from being identified as a cache on the outside.

<snip>

I think the bottom line here is; It's the larger caches that are of concern, not tins of altoids.

Film canisters have been destroyed by bomb squads as well as bison tubes and hide-a-keys. Those are just cases that I can recall, it wouldn't surprise me if Altoids tins have been as well.

Every cache benefits from being marked in some way, but it won't stop the bomb squad once they have been called.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Castle Mischief

1.1k · June 12, 2009

Sadly, most cops are not paid enough to survive on a single job income.

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouth...LG12000003.html

National average is 49,000$. I think it's hard to argue that this is not a livable wage.

(I don't begrudge a cop a good wage - they do an important job)

Kind of depends on what part of the country you're in doesn't it? Most of locals that I've talked to started out making about half that on their first year in uniform. I worked a night-shift temp job at a box factory once with a patrol cop that only made $25K and had to supplement that with the $8 an hour job that we were doing.

I totally get that... "entry level" cops are going to make a lot less then experienced cops. However, your original statement was that "not paid enough to survive on a single job income" - that's what I was disagreeing about. If the average is 49k, then some are making a lot more and some are making a lot less.

bomb squad madness again

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment