Permission Denied!

[+MasterAlthalus]

So I had a GREAT place for a cache! It was gonna be awesome! GREAT! I was gonna put it in this beautiful wooded area behind my house that has a nifty little creek running through it.

 

Alas, the owner of the land didn't feel "comfortable" for the idea after explaining geocaching in a voice mail. So in a final effort to beg a plead I sent a very professionally worded letter including the Geocaching brochure and I'm currently waiting to hear back (almost 2 weeks now).

 

So what other great cache's have you not been able to place due to...cautious landowners?

[+StarBrand]

I've found that approaching landowners in person is much better than letters, emails and such.

 

I've had about 30 or so deny permission over the years - probably the best one was to be hidden in a ghost town located on some private land. Had good access and was a nice walk. Very historic and interesting - the guy allows the curious into the area all the time. Suddenly he got all worried about safety issues if the visitor also happened to be Geocaching. Too bad. I do have 1 other that is very similar and gets good comments.

[+the pooks]

<snip> I sent a very professionally worded letter including the Geocaching brochure and I'm currently waiting to hear back (almost 2 weeks now).

<snip>

 

I've found that approaching landowners in person is much better than letters, emails and such.

 

I've had about 30 or so deny permission over the years - probably the best one was to be hidden in a ghost town located on some private land. Had good access and was a nice walk. Very historic and interesting - the guy allows the curious into the area all the time. Suddenly he got all worried about safety issues if the visitor also happened to be Geocaching. Too bad. I do have 1 other that is very similar and gets good comments.

 

I would agree that approaching landowners in person would have the best chances. It is so much easier to refuse a letter if you don't know what it is about.

 

Also: If one could convince a landowner just to give it a chance - convince them that you will undertake to archive the cache if issues arise. In that way they do not enter an indefinite commitment. Hopefully that will make them less nervous about allowing the cache. They (hopefully) will soon see the pleasure it provides which will fill them with warm fuzzy feelings.

Edited June 8, 2009 by the pooks

[GOF and Bacall]

How well do you know the landowner? Take him out caching to a couple of carefully picked caches so he can get a feel for what it is about.

[+MasterAlthalus]

How well do you know the landowner? Take him out caching to a couple of carefully picked caches so he can get a feel for what it is about.

 

I offered to in the letter. I would meet him in person but the owner is actually the owner of a whole bunch of land around here and sold off the land that my home is now built on, so I think he doesn't want a cache there because he plans to develop the area. In the 6 years here though I've yet to see anyone besides teenagers with 4wheelers running around back there.

[knowschad]

Your first mistake was to simply leave a voicemail. That left it way too easy for him to turn you down. Your voicemail should have been no more than asking him for a chance to meet with him to discuss something.

 

Your next mistake was to follow that up with an email. Again, too impersonal. You've lost momentum now on two occasions and its going to be tough to make it up, if its at all possible.

 

Has he stated his concerns to you, or simply turned you down? Since this is private property, he is very likely concerned about liability issues. Do you know how you will deal with it if that is his main concern?

[+Arrow42]

It might be worth pointing out to land-owners that cachers from geocaching.com all have signed a disclaimer holding no one but them-selfs responsible for injuries.

 

It might also help to show them the CITO projects. They might like the idea of people cleaning up litter for them.

[Skippermark]

It might be worth pointing out to land-owners that cachers from geocaching.com all have signed a disclaimer holding no one but them-selfs responsible for injuries.

Actually, that's not true.

 

The disclaimer does nothing to protect land owners. It only protects Groundspeak, their officers, et al.

 

From the Terms of Use:

 

9. Indemnity

You agree to indemnify and hold Groundspeak, its officers, employees, agents and volunteer administrators harmless against any and all losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) that Groundspeak may incur in connection with: ( a ) Your breach of any of the terms of this Agreement; or ( b ) Your use of the Site.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Skippermark

[+Too Tall John]

It might be worth pointing out to land-owners that cachers from geocaching.com all have signed a disclaimer holding no one but them-selfs responsible for injuries.

Actually, that's not true.

 

The disclaimer does nothing to protect land owners. It only protects Groundspeak, their officers, et al.

 

From the Terms of Use:

 

9. Indemnity

You agree to indemnify and hold Groundspeak, its officers, employees, agents and volunteer administrators harmless against any and all losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) that Groundspeak may incur in connection with: ( a ) Your breach of any of the terms of this Agreement; or ( b ) Your use of the Site.

Err.. Ehrm...

 

Just don't get hurt hunting my caches, ok?

 

[+Col. Flagg]

In the 6 years here though I've yet to see anyone besides teenagers with 4wheelers running around back there.

 

Since this is private property, he is very likely concerned about liability issues. Do you know how you will deal with it if that is his main concern?

 

Do you want to know that liability of having kids ride four wheelers on your property. I had a friend that had wanted to let kids four wheelers on there 800 acre property but the insurance was unaffordable. I'd be mentioning that to him.

Edited June 8, 2009 by franklin_cacher

[knowschad]

In the 6 years here though I've yet to see anyone besides teenagers with 4wheelers running around back there.

 

Since this is private property, he is very likely concerned about liability issues. Do you know how you will deal with it if that is his main concern?

 

Do you want to know that liability of having kids ride four wheelers on your property. I had a friend that had wanted to let kids four wheelers on there 800 acre property but the insurance was unaffordable. I'd be mentioning that to him.

 

He very likely (I suspect) has not given permission to those riding ATVs on his land, and may very well have tried to keep them off of it. Irrelevant to a cacher trying to obtain permisson for caching.

[GOF and Bacall]

In the 6 years here though I've yet to see anyone besides teenagers with 4wheelers running around back there.

 

Since this is private property, he is very likely concerned about liability issues. Do you know how you will deal with it if that is his main concern?

 

Do you want to know that liability of having kids ride four wheelers on your property. I had a friend that had wanted to let kids four wheelers on there 800 acre property but the insurance was unaffordable. I'd be mentioning that to him.

Um, I didn't say that.

[+Arrow42]

It might be worth pointing out to land-owners that cachers from geocaching.com all have signed a disclaimer holding no one but them-selfs responsible for injuries.

Actually, that's not true.

 

The disclaimer does nothing to protect land owners. It only protects Groundspeak, their officers, et al.

 

From the Terms of Use:

 

9. Indemnity

You agree to indemnify and hold Groundspeak, its officers, employees, agents and volunteer administrators harmless against any and all losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) that Groundspeak may incur in connection with: ( a ) Your breach of any of the terms of this Agreement; or ( b ) Your use of the Site.

 

Drats. I retract my initial statement.

[+bittsen]

The decision to keep geocachers off certain public lands has a bt of logic to it.

In cases where hunting is allowed, it is disruptive to the hunting if geocachers are going through the hunting grounds making the animals a little edgy. After all, we want Bambi to be calm, relaxed, comfortable right before we blow his head off, right?

As for the painballing ban, it would be a good defense for a hunter if he said "I saw something hiding in the bushes and it looked like a deer" when asked why the paintballer was sent to his maker.

 

Now, I don't agree with the bans, but I see the logic.

 

Personally, I find it silly that people can hunt and kill the wildlife but its not cool for people to hunt little treasures while respecting the wildlife.

 

The bottom line is this property is PUBLIC, for PUBLIC use. To limit one kind of public use but not another (especially when it is more destructive) is ridiculous. But, hey, my opinions aren't always the popular ones.

[knowschad]

The decision to keep geocachers off certain public lands has a bt of logic to it.

In cases where hunting is allowed, it is disruptive to the hunting if geocachers are going through the hunting grounds making the animals a little edgy. After all, we want Bambi to be calm, relaxed, comfortable right before we blow his head off, right?

As for the painballing ban, it would be a good defense for a hunter if he said "I saw something hiding in the bushes and it looked like a deer" when asked why the paintballer was sent to his maker.

 

Now, I don't agree with the bans, but I see the logic.

 

Personally, I find it silly that people can hunt and kill the wildlife but its not cool for people to hunt little treasures while respecting the wildlife.

 

The bottom line is this property is PUBLIC, for PUBLIC use. To limit one kind of public use but not another (especially when it is more destructive) is ridiculous. But, hey, my opinions aren't always the popular ones.

 

(Psssssttt.... I think you intended to reply to this thread )

[+Col. Flagg]

In the 6 years here though I've yet to see anyone besides teenagers with 4wheelers running around back there.

 

Since this is private property, he is very likely concerned about liability issues. Do you know how you will deal with it if that is his main concern?

 

Do you want to know that liability of having kids ride four wheelers on your property. I had a friend that had wanted to let kids four wheelers on there 800 acre property but the insurance was unaffordable. I'd be mentioning that to him.

Um, I didn't say that.

Sorry if I miss quoted, I'm still new to forums.

[+bittsen]

(Psssssttt.... I think you intended to reply to this thread )

 

BIZARRE!!! Thats the one I did reply to.

I swear this forum is haunted or something.

[+MasterAlthalus]

Your first mistake was to simply leave a voicemail. That left it way too easy for him to turn you down. Your voicemail should have been no more than asking him for a chance to meet with him to discuss something.

 

Your next mistake was to follow that up with an email. Again, too impersonal. You've lost momentum now on two occasions and its going to be tough to make it up, if its at all possible.

 

Has he stated his concerns to you, or simply turned you down? Since this is private property, he is very likely concerned about liability issues. Do you know how you will deal with it if that is his main concern?

 

I didn't e-mail him, I sent him a snail-mail letter.

 

He didn't return my first call, his secretary did.

[CoyoteRed]

If he is reluctant due to liability issues then you should research your state's recreational use statutes. Looks like you're from Georgia and Georgia does have a RUS.

 

In a nutshell, a recreational use statute, depending on state, relieves a land owner of liability for folks coming on their land with permission for recreational use. I don't know the exact background, but essentially it was created by folks who wanted to hike, ride, or paddle through. It is a good thing for just about everyone except a certain sub-set of lawyers and those who like to work the system.

 

I don't like pushing CITO for landowners. I believe they can sometimes get the wrong idea. CITO is not what geocaching is all about--it's a by-product and a way to give back. It doesn't hurt in the least to mention it, though.

 

Instead, highlight the lack of permanence of the cache, the relatively low impact compared to some other activity, the positive use the land will get while he is hanging on it. His land will be ready for the buyer while still being productive, in a sense, until then.

[+FreckleoftheSpider]

Today's cacher could be tomorrow's purchaser of said land. . .

[knowschad]

Today's cacher could be tomorrow's purchaser of said land. . .

 

 

 

ok

 

[+JohnE5]

I recently asked a land owner if I could place in his roadside display. I just drove up, saw him in the back of the yard, I said hello and told him that I would like to highlight his display on the GC website. I mentioned that there would be a container that they would need to find and if he didn't want them to touch anything, I would understand. He seemed fine with everything. Just let the land owner know that you want to show the nice area to others. Most will understand.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I don't like pushing CITO for landowners. I believe they can sometimes get the wrong idea. CITO is not what geocaching is all about--it's a by-product and a way to give back. It doesn't hurt in the least to mention it, though.

Agreed. The CITO ethic seems to be dying. When I started in 2003 it was quite common, now I know only a handful of cachers that practice it as part of their everyday caching.

 

Promising, or even appearing to do so (if you tell them cachers CITO they may take that as a commitment) something that probably won't happen won't help your relationships with land owners.

[knowschad]

I don't like pushing CITO for landowners. I believe they can sometimes get the wrong idea. CITO is not what geocaching is all about--it's a by-product and a way to give back. It doesn't hurt in the least to mention it, though.

Agreed. The CITO ethic seems to be dying. When I started in 2003 it was quite common, now I know only a handful of cachers that practice it as part of their everyday caching.

 

Promising, or even appearing to do so (if you tell them cachers CITO they may take that as a commitment) something that probably won't happen won't help your relationships with land owners.

 

I'm glad that you mentioned that. I have been thinking about starting a thread about just that. You almost never hear it mentioned, I've gone to caches that have had many recent finds, yet found old trash almost on top of the cache... it just seems to have gone by the wayside.

[+Arrow42]

I don't like pushing CITO for landowners. I believe they can sometimes get the wrong idea. CITO is not what geocaching is all about--it's a by-product and a way to give back. It doesn't hurt in the least to mention it, though.

Agreed. The CITO ethic seems to be dying. When I started in 2003 it was quite common, now I know only a handful of cachers that practice it as part of their everyday caching.

 

Promising, or even appearing to do so (if you tell them cachers CITO they may take that as a commitment) something that probably won't happen won't help your relationships with land owners.

 

It's easier to say No initially then it is to kick someone out latter.

 

This thread is about selling the idea of a cache to a property owner - the CITO philosophy is a selling point.

[+chuckwagon101]

I don't want no electronic geeks toting hand-held witching devices running all over my property!

 

I had enough of that with the hippies back in the 60s tromping all through my begonias!

 

Hadda buncha paint sniffin' hoodlums just last week making a big fairy circle of huffin' stuff down to my pecan orchard!

 

Now take all that super science stuff and.....GIT!!

 

***If you can convince this open minded old buzzard, then I will personally point you to some of my fav Big Pile of Sticks!***

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This thread is about selling the idea of a cache to a property owner - the CITO philosophy is a selling point.

A basic tenet of any successful salesman is to never sell something you can't deliver!

 

Don't get me wrong, I am a strong advocate of CITO, have hosted several and attended more, and include it (though not often enough, I admit) in my everyday geocaching habit.

 

Whenever I explain the game I include the fact that CITO is a basic ethic commonly practiced by geocachers.

 

What I do not do is say or imply to landowners that geocachers will clean up their property if I am allowed to hide a cache there.

 

See the difference?

[CoyoteRed]

This thread is about selling the idea of a cache to a property owner - the CITO philosophy is a selling point.

I agree with AR. Unless you're going to organize a CITO event then I wouldn't be promising something that isn't going to happen. Sure, a cacher or two might pick a grocery bag or two of trash, but in a normal course of caching that's about it. I've seen well established areas with trash and if the land owner gets interested in trying geocaching for himself and sees that in many places CITO just doesn't happen, then that tack just might backfire.

 

Do what you want, but I never mention CITO unless we're going to hold an event.

[+Arrow42]

This thread is about selling the idea of a cache to a property owner - the CITO philosophy is a selling point.

A basic tenet of any successful salesman is to never sell something you can't deliver!

 

Don't get me wrong, I am a strong advocate of CITO, have hosted several and attended more, and include it (though not often enough, I admit) in my everyday geocaching habit.

 

Whenever I explain the game I include the fact that CITO is a basic ethic commonly practiced by geocachers.

 

What I do not do is say or imply to landowners that geocachers will clean up their property if I am allowed to hide a cache there.

 

See the difference?

 

I'm not saying promise their property will be clean in a week. CITO is something that people do participate in. I think it's really worth mentioning. Even if it ends up just being you as the CO who does it regularly on your maintenance checks then there really is an incremental improvement.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Arrow42