Forest Service taking caches

[+Rockin Roddy]

People seem to harp about the trash which is left behind yet caches are being removed...who's to blame for the trash to begin with? Yep, people who think they can do whatever whenever just because!

 

Wanna make nice with the PTB, try a CITO....publically announce it and make sure to coordinate your efforts with the PTB so they can see we truly do care about the lands we wish to use. A small but worthy step IMHO!

 

 

Guess you missed Mtn-man's mysterious and intriguing post:

 

 

 

As one who was threatened by the NPS people that KBI was talking about (with jailtime and fines over the phone while talking to them about final plans for a CITO, thank you very much),

 

 

I didn't miss it at all, but can you tell me what this proves??

[+Rockin Roddy]

So, you're saying that you could go to court and prove beyond a doubt that your statement is true? Really??

Probably, but I don't really care what you believe.

 

I know it happened. I watched it happen right here in my own neighborhood. Mtn-Man saw it too. In fact he was more involved with it than I, and can probably provide more detail.

 

All I know is there were about a half-dozen cool-sounding caches near me in a nearby federal forest – a "National Recreation (hah!) Area." The logs indicated they were some pretty outstanding hides. I had them on my to-do list, but by the time I got around to getting out there they had all* been gathered up by our loving and benevolent Gubmint. I got to log a bunch of DNFs that day, pretty much the first DNF each cache had seen. If those were murders, I’d have been the witness that discovered the bodies.

 

*All but one, that is. This rather clever hide stumped our hero on his first pass. He figured it out later, though, and it too was gone.

 

Yet the trash piles remained.

 

I can give you the names of several locals who were there and saw the same thing I did. Why don’t I send you a list so you can email each of them and tell them they were imagining the trash piles too? I’m sure you’ll make lots of friends.

 

Briansnat watched the same debacle play out in another location. Wanna call him a liar too?

 

So anyway, you haven’t answered my question. Did you find any holes in my logic yet?

 

 

While I can’t speak for every instance of cache removal, neither can you, and to insinuate that all Federal employees are lazy and just trying to annoy cachers by removing caches is simply ludicrous.

I never said all federal employees are lazy. All I have done is (1) express the rage I felt when I learned what happened near me, and (2) explain that it’s going to take a LOT of impressive behavior on their part to re-earn my respect.

 

But I do stand by my claim of an anti-caching agenda, at least on the part of the officials who burned up tax dollars collecting up our local caches while leaving the trash. No other explanation stands to reason. (See the "simple logic" post above.)

 

Calm down captain senastionalism! I'd love to continue chatting with you, but you're rather rude insistance that I called ANYONE a liar really turns me off from even trying to. Have yourself a much calmer day...OK!

 

ooops, I missed the last comment. Logic? You consider that rant to have logic? Sorry, there's no logic I can see that would be able to have holes in it, there's no logic at all IMHO. Just a nice angsty rant....

Edited August 31, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+Rockin Roddy]

People seem to harp about the trash which is left behind yet caches are being removed...who's to blame for the trash to begin with? Yep, people who think they can do whatever whenever just because!...

 

Them folks ain't cachers. However you bring up a fair point. Look to the cost and ease of using a dump or the trash service. When I was a kid the policy was. "If you can get it to the curb, we can haul it away". Over time the policy has changed to "If it fits in this plastic can, isn't too heavy, isn't on this list of stuff we don't take, doesn't hold the lid up, we will take it, but don't pack your can too tight, if it doesn't fall out we don't care either".

 

Trash service is no longer about collecting things to dispose of them in a way that does the job best for us all. It's about make it easy for the collector to use mechanized tools to stretch the dollar. In other words if Joe Redneck cleans up his place and can't afford the dump, it's going somewhere and Joe Public who can't won't fund trash service right, gets to fund the clean up another way.

 

The fix is easy, but expensive. Clean up is for now a hidden cost. When the cost to society isnt' hidden I suspect it will make the real fix (whatever you get to the curb we will haul away) reasonable.

 

I agree and never said it was cachers (solely, you can't say for certain that no cacher has ever made illegal dumpings), but see your point! My thought here is work to make the change you desire!

[knowschad]

People seem to harp about the trash which is left behind yet caches are being removed...who's to blame for the trash to begin with? Yep, people who think they can do whatever whenever just because!

 

Wanna make nice with the PTB, try a CITO....publically announce it and make sure to coordinate your efforts with the PTB so they can see we truly do care about the lands we wish to use. A small but worthy step IMHO!

 

 

Guess you missed Mtn-man's mysterious and intriguing post:

 

 

 

As one who was threatened by the NPS people that KBI was talking about (with jailtime and fines over the phone while talking to them about final plans for a CITO, thank you very much),

 

 

I didn't miss it at all, but can you tell me what this proves??

 

 

It doesn't prove anything, but it does indicate that a CITO won't neccessarily "make nice with the PTB".

[+Rockin Roddy]

People seem to harp about the trash which is left behind yet caches are being removed...who's to blame for the trash to begin with? Yep, people who think they can do whatever whenever just because!

 

Wanna make nice with the PTB, try a CITO....publically announce it and make sure to coordinate your efforts with the PTB so they can see we truly do care about the lands we wish to use. A small but worthy step IMHO!

 

 

Guess you missed Mtn-man's mysterious and intriguing post:

 

 

 

As one who was threatened by the NPS people that KBI was talking about (with jailtime and fines over the phone while talking to them about final plans for a CITO, thank you very much),

 

 

I didn't miss it at all, but can you tell me what this proves??

 

 

It doesn't prove anything, but it does indicate that a CITO won't neccessarily "make nice with the PTB".

 

You could be right, but how would you know unless you do indeed try? Sitting back and simply complaining (like some sound like they've been doing) certainly won't make things better, might give the person high blood pressure, but that's a new topic! I will agree that you can't make nice with everyone, but it's better to try and know you did all you can than to sit back and have a wish sandwich IMHO!

[Mushtang]

You could be right, but how would you know unless you do indeed try?

Um... Mtn-man DID indeed try. Haven't you been paying attention??? There WAS a CITO event even though the land managers threatened him with jail time if he tried to hide a cache in the area.

 

The land managers stepped OVER trash and had to look long and hard to find the geocaches in order to remove them, yet they didn't remove any of the garbage. Do you still refuse to believe this happened?

[+Rockin Roddy]

You could be right, but how would you know unless you do indeed try?

Um... Mtn-man DID indeed try. Haven't you been paying attention??? There WAS a CITO event even though the land managers threatened him with jail time if he tried to hide a cache in the area.

 

The land managers stepped OVER trash and had to look long and hard to find the geocaches in order to remove them, yet they didn't remove any of the garbage. Do you still refuse to believe this happened?

 

OMG, you're right Mushtang...they DID try. Once. On one of what...several dozens of typical situations? This proves WHAT? That everyone in the NPS etc are doing the same thing?? Get over that one time and maybe, just maybe, you'll see that I'm saying GIVE IT A TRY, it can't hurt you. Hey, it MAY even help!

 

Or, you can sit at your computer, moan about the mean old NPS peoples and complain to someone who couln't give a rip if you sit there and moan or not! Maybe that might help the situation? Possibly?

 

I'm not discounting Mtn-Man's and others' attempt, I am merely saying don't give up because it happened ONCE!

[+Rockin Roddy]

You could be right, but how would you know unless you do indeed try?

Um... Mtn-man DID indeed try. Haven't you been paying attention??? There WAS a CITO event even though the land managers threatened him with jail time if he tried to hide a cache in the area.

 

The land managers stepped OVER trash and had to look long and hard to find the geocaches in order to remove them, yet they didn't remove any of the garbage. Do you still refuse to believe this happened?

 

BTW....have YOU been paying attention?? Maybe you should read a few posts up there a bit to realize there has been discussion as to the ease (or lack thereof) of removing chemicals and dumped farm equipment etc? Maybe you missed where it was discussed that it's quite possible the pile in your picture isn't even there anymore or could be scheduled for removal??

[+brokenoaks]

Wow! I was off the computer a couple of days and come back to find this still going on. I thought it would be beat to death by now. On well I guess I will stick my two cents worth in and see how many feathers I can ruffle. Groundspeak's guidelines are simple enough for anyone to understand. No matter how one wants to pick apart and analyze every word the intent is still the same. if you don't get it ask someone who does . As for the Forest service give it a break! We have thousands of people using our national forests and other public lands and every one of them has some activity they want to do on our public lands. the people that manage these lands try to come up with rules to accommodate as many people and varied activities as possible and still protect these lands. these rules continuously change as the mission or the desired use changes. it does not happen overnight but going through the proper channels will get a much better result than attacking our public workers for simply doing their jobs. and yes rules are often implemented differently within different districts and agencies. get over it! look how many interpretations of a simple Groundspeak guideline we get in our relatively small geocaching community.

[knowschad]

Roddy, I've exchanged private emails with you, and I do believe that you are a good guy. But your forum posts all too often come across as needlessly, and possibly deliberatively, argumentative. Now, I may be accused of being naive, but I really don't think that you intend to come across that way, but you do. And this is a perfect example. This has been a good discussion. Please try to not derail it, OK?

[+Rockin Roddy]

Roddy, I've exchanged private emails with you, and I do believe that you are a good guy. But your forum posts all too often come across as needlessly, and possibly deliberatively, argumentative. Now, I may be accused of being naive, but I really don't think that you intend to come across that way, but you do. And this is a perfect example. This has been a good discussion. Please try to not derail it, OK?

 

I answer in like kind to the tone brought forth to me. If the poster directing their attitude toward me is combative, I am more than happy to meet them with similar attitude. KBI came across as telling me I called him and others liars when I merely asked if his "provably" comment held water, I didn't mean he was lying as much as exaggerating his position (hence, can it be court proven). He continued to say I was calling him a liar, well, tell a mod if that's how you feel, but don't come across smugly or you'll be met equally! Mushtang was coming forward with much the same attitude and I called him on it...and will do so if and when needed!

 

Derail it? I am adding to the discussion and TRYING to bring a kinder approach which was met with the rants of those I mentioned...tell them to play nicely and you'll note I will as well!! But, don't tell me I'm derailing the thread when I'm not the one bringing the rants...

 

THANKS!

 

ETA...and truly, this thread has been a train wreck from the time someone suggested others email the lady, even posting her email address. This thread has had nothing to do with the OPs comments other than comparing other problems. Just pointing this out!

Edited September 1, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[knowschad]

I answer in like kind to the tone brought forth to me. If the poster directing their attitude toward me is combative, I am more than happy to meet them with similar attitude. KBI came across as telling me I called him and others liars when I merely asked if his "provably" comment held water, I didn't mean he was lying as much as exaggerating his position (hence, can it be court proven). He continued to say I was calling him a liar, well, tell a mod if that's how you feel, but don't come across smugly or you'll be met equally! Mushtang was coming forward with much the same attitude and I called him on it...and will do so if and when needed!

 

Derail it? I am adding to the discussion and TRYING to bring a kinder approach which was met with the rants of those I mentioned...tell them to play nicely and you'll note I will as well!! But, don't tell me I'm derailing the thread when I'm not the one bringing the rants...

 

THANKS!

 

ETA...and truly, this thread has been a train wreck from the time someone suggested others email the lady, even posting her email address. This thread has had nothing to do with the OPs comments other than comparing other problems. Just pointing this out!

 

 

OK, but you don't come across that way. Sorry. I know a good PR team if you are interested.

 

 

Seriously, Roddy... I know that your intentions are only the best. But sometimes your presentation leaves a bit to be desired (as does mine, all too often!!!) I *think* that we are on the same side here.

[Mushtang]

You could be right, but how would you know unless you do indeed try?

Um... Mtn-man DID indeed try. Haven't you been paying attention??? There WAS a CITO event even though the land managers threatened him with jail time if he tried to hide a cache in the area.

 

The land managers stepped OVER trash and had to look long and hard to find the geocaches in order to remove them, yet they didn't remove any of the garbage. Do you still refuse to believe this happened?

OMG, you're right Mushtang...they DID try. Once. On one of what...several dozens of typical situations? This proves WHAT? That everyone in the NPS etc are doing the same thing?? Get over that one time and maybe, just maybe, you'll see that I'm saying GIVE IT A TRY, it can't hurt you. Hey, it MAY even help!

 

Or, you can sit at your computer, moan about the mean old NPS peoples and complain to someone who couln't give a rip if you sit there and moan or not! Maybe that might help the situation? Possibly?

 

I'm not discounting Mtn-Man's and others' attempt, I am merely saying don't give up because it happened ONCE!

Now you're trying to change what your point was. You quite clearly claimed that KBI couldn't possibly be correct in his claim that the land managers that picked up the caches he referenced had an anti-geocaching agenda because he couldn't prove that they had stepped over garbage to pick up geocaches.

 

Go read the link above, it takes you to the post where you made this argument.

 

I asked if you still refused to believe that it happened and you start screaming at me about how I should go try and pick up trash myself (as if that would somehow change if you believed what KBI claimed or not).

 

You (rudely) asked what my post proved, and it shows that 1) you weren't paying attention to what you asked and what was provided to you, 2) and you won't admit when you're wrong.

[+AstroDav]

I suspect this deal with the Forest Service will only get worse. Just today, a note was received from our reviewer that he was requiring written proof from the Forest Service for caches placed within state highway right-of-ways which are ADJACENT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

 

Basically meaning if you live on one side & the Nat'l Forest is on the other, & you place a cache on YOUR land....then you have to call the Forest Service up & have them to come look at it & say, "Yes, this isn't our land"....even if you TELL him that it's on your side of the highway.

 

Rules like that definitely do nothing to help the sport of geocaching & are in my opinion are in VERY poor taste. What right does the Forest Service have to say whether I can place a cache on MY side of the highway?? My hopes are that the Forest Service will eventually see how ridiculous something like that is, then hopefully the person who made that decision will then see just how ridiculous it sounds.

 

But judging from some of what I've seen on the issue, those hopes aren't very high.

[+Curioddity]

I hate to interrupt a good argument to revisit an early post in the thread, but here goes anyway:

 

In post # 33 of this thread, I mentioned that the USFS typically won't even allow firefighting activities in a wilderness area. I also mentioned that I personally witnessed that during the 21 years I lived in the Plumas National Forest.

 

Now I live in the Los Angeles Basin and there's a 105,000+ acre inferno called the Station Fire currently burning in the Angeles National Forest just north of here. The fire has killed 2 firefighters, badly injured at least 5 civilians, displaced thousands of evacuees, and (according to the talking heads on TV) it's burned at least 70 homes to the ground.

 

And one of those talking heads just revealed the origin of the fire: It started in a wilderness area more than a month ago and was just allowed to burn. How's that for forest management?

 

'Nuff outta me. I need to drop the subject before my emotions run completely amok. To really understand that, you'll also need to understand that two families which I know well lost their homes and everything they own last night in that fire. That, and I loathe most bureaucrats.

 

Pete

[+AstroDav]

The U.S. forrest service should take a lesson from the Minnesota State parks. The Minnesota State parks not only allows caching, but have their own caching programs. And they will loan a gps to anyone that wants to give geocahing a shot. Way to go Minnesota!

 

Same here with Arkansas. But I'm not sure about the GPS loaning thing. We have an official cache in each of the 52 parks, plus a final bonus one. There are also several "private" caches in each park. The program is VERY succesfull & popular.

 

Certain agencies though just can't see to figure out how to make the jump into modern times. And I'm saying that even from having several relatives who have worked for the FS, some of whom did so long enough to retire.

[+AstroDav]

The U.S. forrest service should take a lesson from the Minnesota State parks. The Minnesota State parks not only allows caching, but have their own caching programs. And they will loan a gps to anyone that wants to give geocahing a shot. Way to go Minnesota!

 

The state park system and the Forestry system exist for very different reasons. THe park system is there to bring people to the area, as well as to protect it as much as possible from those visitors. The Forestry folks, on the other hand, is mandated with protecting the resources, period. And beyond that, there are those special sections of Forest Service land, the wilderness areas, that are set aside for the sole purpose of having absolutely minimal human contact.

 

Actually that's not quite true:

 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/

[+AstroDav]

I have had several caches STOLEN by the National Forest Service, and most of them, like this one:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ef-64c2637b4d13

are NOT on National Forest Land. This cache is on Colorado Department of Transportation EASEMENT land, it is a HIGHWAY PULLOUT maintained by CDOT. So I just replace it and write a letter to the NFS.

 

Not safe there anymore either. Notice my post above. Reviewers can decide if the Nat'l Forest needs to look at caches on state right-of-ways or even private land. So basically, if you are within a mile or so of any Nat'l Forest, whether you place the cache on THEIR land or not, you STILL might have to get permission from them to do it.

 

The rules aren't going to get any better than they are right now for Nat'l Forest caches I'm afraid, & given free rein for personal type policies such as this, the Forest Service will soon see they have won the battle against this nasty caching-curse & ban them entirely.

[+Rockin Roddy]

You could be right, but how would you know unless you do indeed try?

Um... Mtn-man DID indeed try. Haven't you been paying attention??? There WAS a CITO event even though the land managers threatened him with jail time if he tried to hide a cache in the area.

 

The land managers stepped OVER trash and had to look long and hard to find the geocaches in order to remove them, yet they didn't remove any of the garbage. Do you still refuse to believe this happened?

OMG, you're right Mushtang...they DID try. Once. On one of what...several dozens of typical situations? This proves WHAT? That everyone in the NPS etc are doing the same thing?? Get over that one time and maybe, just maybe, you'll see that I'm saying GIVE IT A TRY, it can't hurt you. Hey, it MAY even help!

 

Or, you can sit at your computer, moan about the mean old NPS peoples and complain to someone who couln't give a rip if you sit there and moan or not! Maybe that might help the situation? Possibly?

 

I'm not discounting Mtn-Man's and others' attempt, I am merely saying don't give up because it happened ONCE!

Now you're trying to change what your point was. You quite clearly claimed that KBI couldn't possibly be correct in his claim that the land managers that picked up the caches he referenced had an anti-geocaching agenda because he couldn't prove that they had stepped over garbage to pick up geocaches.

 

Go read the link above, it takes you to the post where you made this argument.

 

I asked if you still refused to believe that it happened and you start screaming at me about how I should go try and pick up trash myself (as if that would somehow change if you believed what KBI claimed or not).

 

You (rudely) asked what my post proved, and it shows that 1) you weren't paying attention to what you asked and what was provided to you, 2) and you won't admit when you're wrong.

 

I asked as to the "provability" of his statement. He quite clearly said he could "provably" show the NPS was leaving trash behind. Now, it's been shown this could very well be false since people have pointed out that piles of trash have already been removed, chemicals are hard to move and so on so forth, this shoots HOLES in the "provably" comment, wouldn't you say?

 

Then, YOU came here and, with your smug "Ummm" and "haven't you been paying attention" as if I somehow was ignoring what was posted. Then you asked if I still believe it didn't happen...if you weren't being rude here, my apologies, but I saw it otherwise! Having past experiences with you tells me otherwise as well.

 

Now, here you try to tell me what my argument was...I said two words. "Provably? Really?". That's the entire post I made and I stick by it as I am NOT wrong, as you seem to believe! Please can you show me where I called ANYONE a liar in those two words? Can you show me where my comment says anything other than asking for clarification as to the "provably" comment?

 

Wrong is such a strong word, but here, someone IS wrong....not me though!

 

Screaming, OK! I suggested that ANYONE who wanted to see a change in attitude should maybe try to meet them halfway...simple as that. If you missed that , maybe you should follow your own advicxe to me and pay attention! I wasn't addressing you personally, I was saying ANYONE....and it had nothing to do with "believing" your brother, it was saying it could help make friends. Whether I believe KBI can prove something or not has no bearing on that...and no, I don't believe KBI could prove his statement now or ever!

 

To reiterate, change is a two-way street. The folks some are railing against seem to believe cachers are damaging the lands and some cachers believe these people are out to get only the caches and not worried about the trash. If WE want to change the attitudes of the peple in question, showing we're a caring bunch COULD go a long way to that end while sitting back and moaning and harping about it while offering nothing more...well, that should help!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I suspect this deal with the Forest Service will only get worse. Just today, a note was received from our reviewer that he was requiring written proof from the Forest Service for caches placed within state highway right-of-ways which are ADJACENT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

 

Basically meaning if you live on one side & the Nat'l Forest is on the other, & you place a cache on YOUR land....then you have to call the Forest Service up & have them to come look at it & say, "Yes, this isn't our land"....even if you TELL him that it's on your side of the highway.

 

Rules like that definitely do nothing to help the sport of geocaching & are in my opinion are in VERY poor taste. What right does the Forest Service have to say whether I can place a cache on MY side of the highway?? My hopes are that the Forest Service will eventually see how ridiculous something like that is, then hopefully the person who made that decision will then see just how ridiculous it sounds.

 

But judging from some of what I've seen on the issue, those hopes aren't very high.

 

I suspect having written permission would have stopped a lot of the problems we see already. I see this as a good thing (asking for written proof), it'll end a lot of the removals which aren't on their lands (as has been complained about in this thread somewhere). I think too many have already tried the "I told them I placed it on my land" approach, I suspect some have overstepped their boundaries (figuratively)...either purposely or not. Sometimes, the lands are hard to differentiate.

 

Obvioulsy, the Forest Service can't stop you from pacing caches on your property, verifying it is your property is their goal with this!

[+Rockin Roddy]

The U.S. forrest service should take a lesson from the Minnesota State parks. The Minnesota State parks not only allows caching, but have their own caching programs. And they will loan a gps to anyone that wants to give geocahing a shot. Way to go Minnesota!

 

Same here with Arkansas. But I'm not sure about the GPS loaning thing. We have an official cache in each of the 52 parks, plus a final bonus one. There are also several "private" caches in each park. The program is VERY succesfull & popular.

 

Certain agencies though just can't see to figure out how to make the jump into modern times. And I'm saying that even from having several relatives who have worked for the FS, some of whom did so long enough to retire.

 

It would be nice if this were the case. However, in this area at least, it wasn't always the nice "caches welcome here" attitude we have now. Before we worked with our DNR, we were not allowed to place a cache without paying a fee ($35 for up to 3 caches placed). Now, MiGO members are free to place caches on our state parks as long as we show it's in a good location not damaging fragile ecosystems and the like, fill out a permission form and follow their rules for placement (clear container marked as a cache etc).

 

Of course, this change wasn't a whim on the parts of the DNR, it took a lot of PR work and we had to prove that this was a win-win situation...placing caches in state parks! As was pointed out, change takes time. I'd also say that change won't happen unless attitudes are changed...on both sides.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I hate to interrupt a good argument to revisit an early post in the thread, but here goes anyway:

 

In post # 33 of this thread, I mentioned that the USFS typically won't even allow firefighting activities in a wilderness area. I also mentioned that I personally witnessed that during the 21 years I lived in the Plumas National Forest.

 

Now I live in the Los Angeles Basin and there's a 105,000+ acre inferno called the Station Fire currently burning in the Angeles National Forest just north of here. The fire has killed 2 firefighters, badly injured at least 5 civilians, displaced thousands of evacuees, and (according to the talking heads on TV) it's burned at least 70 homes to the ground.

 

And one of those talking heads just revealed the origin of the fire: It started in a wilderness area more than a month ago and was just allowed to burn. How's that for forest management?

 

'Nuff outta me. I need to drop the subject before my emotions run completely amok. To really understand that, you'll also need to understand that two families which I know well lost their homes and everything they own last night in that fire. That, and I loathe most bureaucrats.

 

Pete

 

I feel for you, I truly do!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I answer in like kind to the tone brought forth to me. If the poster directing their attitude toward me is combative, I am more than happy to meet them with similar attitude. KBI came across as telling me I called him and others liars when I merely asked if his "provably" comment held water, I didn't mean he was lying as much as exaggerating his position (hence, can it be court proven). He continued to say I was calling him a liar, well, tell a mod if that's how you feel, but don't come across smugly or you'll be met equally! Mushtang was coming forward with much the same attitude and I called him on it...and will do so if and when needed!

 

Derail it? I am adding to the discussion and TRYING to bring a kinder approach which was met with the rants of those I mentioned...tell them to play nicely and you'll note I will as well!! But, don't tell me I'm derailing the thread when I'm not the one bringing the rants...

 

THANKS!

 

ETA...and truly, this thread has been a train wreck from the time someone suggested others email the lady, even posting her email address. This thread has had nothing to do with the OPs comments other than comparing other problems. Just pointing this out!

 

 

OK, but you don't come across that way. Sorry. I know a good PR team if you are interested.

 

 

Seriously, Roddy... I know that your intentions are only the best. But sometimes your presentation leaves a bit to be desired (as does mine, all too often!!!) I *think* that we are on the same side here.

 

I've never claimed to be the best spokesman for anything and am not worried that I come across as crass when I'm met with like attitudes. No PR needed, I ams what I ams! KC, I said two words and was told I called 3 people liars, I do take offense when my words are twisted or tried to be made into something they weren't. Two words...

[+Rockin Roddy]

KBI-"The fact is, however, that they provably go out of their way to remove geocaches while ignoring huge piles of trash. This tells me they have an agenda; that they have it in for our hobby."

 

We eagerly await your posting the photos of the huge piles of trash you claim they ignore.

 

If you have been reading this thread you would see where I posted: “I had a long talk with the Wilderness Supervisor in another district when the regulations were changed and my cache that was in a Wilderness Area had to be removed.” I know for a fact that my cache was removed when they visited this remote peak to remove a summit cairn, sign, and blazes of an unofficial trail that had been there for many years and it wasn’t a special trip to remove my cache. When the rules concerning Wilderness were last changed for the WMNF they started being more proactive. Yes, they do have an agenda and that is to follow the mandate of the law and do the best job they can with limited funds.

 

While I can’t speak for every instance of cache removal, neither can you, and to insinuate that all Federal employees are lazy and just trying to annoy cachers by removing caches is simply ludicrous. The people I see displaying “charming cluelessness” are some of the posters here who are misrepresenting what the Wilderness Act says and what they speculate the Government employees may be doing just to promote the agency's agenda.

 

Odd, I am yelled at for asking about the provable comment, yet this poster (more eloquently) stated much the same thing and wasn't? I said two words and was shot at with rudeness, told I called 3 people liars and yet this post was OK?

 

hmmmm.....

[+Stargazer22]

Just thought I'd toss in one minor point here.

 

The removal of caches seems to keep being compared and contrasted to the removal of trash, in the assumption that the reason the caches are being removed is that they are considered to be nothing but trash.

 

But there is another factor about caches that makes them very different from the trash that may be on site. Caches come along with an open invitation to others to come to the area to search for the cache.

Trash dumped on the site does not include any open invitation to anyone to come visit the trash pile.

 

So it's possible that part of the reason caches may be picked up first (ahead of the trash) is to help eliminate that open invitation to come to the spot. If the spot is a huge trash dump, maybe it's not such a great place for a cache anyway. It's also very easy to pick up a cache as compared to a huge pile of trash, which may require some in-depth planning to remove, especially if any of that trash needs special removal techniques. There are some chemicals that may even require removal of some earth if they have leaked out and soaked into the ground. Removal of a cache from any area that may have those kinds of trash would be a good thing, in my opinion.

 

And removal of any cache in any area where it is not welcome is also a good thing, to me. There are millions of acres of land out there where we can place caches and they are welcome to be there. Heck, there's probably even a few of them that have permission to be there!

[Mushtang]

I asked as to the "provability" of his statement. He quite clearly said he could "provably" show the NPS was leaving trash behind. Now, it's been shown this could very well be false since people have pointed out that piles of trash have already been removed, chemicals are hard to move and so on so forth, this shoots HOLES in the "provably" comment, wouldn't you say?

It's been shown it could be false that the NPS left garbage behind because trash HAS been removed? How does the fact that there was a CITO show that it could be false that the NPS didn't pick up the garbage? If anything, it shows that the garbage was still there AFTER the caches were removed, and that it was simple garbage that anyone could remove without danger. I don't think the NPS would have allowed the CITO if it were dangerous chemicals that was "hard to move and so on so forth".

 

So no, I don't think it shoots holes in the provability comment at all. In fact, it does just the opposite. You asked for proof that the NPS had refused to remove garbage but removed the caches instead, and photos of the garbage that was removed AFTER the caches were removed was shown to you by a very reputable member of our forums (a Mod, a reviewer, and a prominent member of the GGA). And yet you still refuse to admit that the NPS, in that case, definitely showed an anti-geocaching agenda with what they did.

 

Then, YOU came here and, with your smug "Ummm" and "haven't you been paying attention" as if I somehow was ignoring what was posted. Then you asked if I still believe it didn't happen...if you weren't being rude here, my apologies, but I saw it otherwise! Having past experiences with you tells me otherwise as well.

And you know what? Nothing in your post leads me to believe that you're paying attention yet.

 

Now, here you try to tell me what my argument was...I said two words. "Provably? Really?". That's the entire post I made and I stick by it as I am NOT wrong, as you seem to believe! Please can you show me where I called ANYONE a liar in those two words? Can you show me where my comment says anything other than asking for clarification as to the "provably" comment?

Only two words eh? You didn't click the link I provided. I'll cut and paste for you so you can't keep pretending you didn't say, "So, you're saying that you could go to court and prove beyond a doubt that your statement is true? Really??" And you also added, "I'll happily drop this line of challenge (as you see it) just as soon as you can prove your stance....prove!"

 

You did initially post two words, but you soon after issued a demand for proof to be shown. You also promised to drop the challenge to the story if proof was indeed provided. It was, but you seem to be unable to admit you're wrong.

 

Wrong is such a strong word, but here, someone IS wrong....me!

Fixed

 

Screaming, OK! I suggested that ANYONE who wanted to see a change in attitude should maybe try to meet them halfway...simple as that. If you missed that , maybe you should follow your own advicxe to me and pay attention! I wasn't addressing you personally, I was saying ANYONE....and it had nothing to do with "believing" your brother, it was saying it could help make friends. Whether I believe KBI can prove something or not has no bearing on that...

I agree, this line of... um.. "advice" you're spouting has no bearing on the claim you're still refusing to believe. It's a fair attempt to change the subject and divert attention away from what you said and what you've been shown.

 

and no, I don't believe KBI could prove his statement now or ever!

So after it was shown that the NPS was not interested in removing trash, that the trash was there in such quantities that a CITO was needed, that the trash wasn't too dangerous for the NPS to have removed themselves, and that they did in fact step over the trash to remove the geocaches, you don't think proof was offered? You don't think that KBI's claim that the NPS had an anti-geocaching agenda by removing geocaches and not the garbage in that instance was shown to be correct?

 

To reiterate, change is a two-way street. The folks some are railing against seem to believe cachers are damaging the lands and some cachers believe these people are out to get only the caches and not worried about the trash. If WE want to change the attitudes of the peple in question, showing we're a caring bunch COULD go a long way to that end while sitting back and moaning and harping about it while offering nothing more...well, that should help!

I agree again. Helping the NPS remove trash does seem like it would get the NPS to change their attitudes about geocaching. This was obviously the reason Mtn-man held the CITO event we've been discussing. But this still doesn't show why you won't admit that you're wrong.

[+Castle Mischief]

I think this is the point in the thread where a usually moderator asks us to direct our responses to the topic and not at each other.

 

Hope I'm not stepping on any toes in pointing that out.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I asked as to the "provability" of his statement. He quite clearly said he could "provably" show the NPS was leaving trash behind. Now, it's been shown this could very well be false since people have pointed out that piles of trash have already been removed, chemicals are hard to move and so on so forth, this shoots HOLES in the "provably" comment, wouldn't you say?

It's been shown it could be false that the NPS left garbage behind because trash HAS been removed? How does the fact that there was a CITO show that it could be false that the NPS didn't pick up the garbage? If anything, it shows that the garbage was still there AFTER the caches were removed, and that it was simple garbage that anyone could remove without danger. I don't think the NPS would have allowed the CITO if it were dangerous chemicals that was "hard to move and so on so forth".

 

So no, I don't think it shoots holes in the provability comment at all. In fact, it does just the opposite. You asked for proof that the NPS had refused to remove garbage but removed the caches instead, and photos of the garbage that was removed AFTER the caches were removed was shown to you by a very reputable member of our forums (a Mod, a reviewer, and a prominent member of the GGA). And yet you still refuse to admit that the NPS, in that case, definitely showed an anti-geocaching agenda with what they did.

 

Then, YOU came here and, with your smug "Ummm" and "haven't you been paying attention" as if I somehow was ignoring what was posted. Then you asked if I still believe it didn't happen...if you weren't being rude here, my apologies, but I saw it otherwise! Having past experiences with you tells me otherwise as well.

And you know what? Nothing in your post leads me to believe that you're paying attention yet.

 

Now, here you try to tell me what my argument was...I said two words. "Provably? Really?". That's the entire post I made and I stick by it as I am NOT wrong, as you seem to believe! Please can you show me where I called ANYONE a liar in those two words? Can you show me where my comment says anything other than asking for clarification as to the "provably" comment?

Only two words eh? You didn't click the link I provided. I'll cut and paste for you so you can't keep pretending you didn't say, "So, you're saying that you could go to court and prove beyond a doubt that your statement is true? Really??" And you also added, "I'll happily drop this line of challenge (as you see it) just as soon as you can prove your stance....prove!"

 

You did initially post two words, but you soon after issued a demand for proof to be shown. You also promised to drop the challenge to the story if proof was indeed provided. It was, but you seem to be unable to admit you're wrong.

 

Wrong is such a strong word, but here, someone IS wrong....me!

Fixed

 

Screaming, OK! I suggested that ANYONE who wanted to see a change in attitude should maybe try to meet them halfway...simple as that. If you missed that , maybe you should follow your own advicxe to me and pay attention! I wasn't addressing you personally, I was saying ANYONE....and it had nothing to do with "believing" your brother, it was saying it could help make friends. Whether I believe KBI can prove something or not has no bearing on that...

I agree, this line of... um.. "advice" you're spouting has no bearing on the claim you're still refusing to believe. It's a fair attempt to change the subject and divert attention away from what you said and what you've been shown.

 

and no, I don't believe KBI could prove his statement now or ever!

So after it was shown that the NPS was not interested in removing trash, that the trash was there in such quantities that a CITO was needed, that the trash wasn't too dangerous for the NPS to have removed themselves, and that they did in fact step over the trash to remove the geocaches, you don't think proof was offered? You don't think that KBI's claim that the NPS had an anti-geocaching agenda by removing geocaches and not the garbage in that instance was shown to be correct?

 

To reiterate, change is a two-way street. The folks some are railing against seem to believe cachers are damaging the lands and some cachers believe these people are out to get only the caches and not worried about the trash. If WE want to change the attitudes of the peple in question, showing we're a caring bunch COULD go a long way to that end while sitting back and moaning and harping about it while offering nothing more...well, that should help!

I agree again. Helping the NPS remove trash does seem like it would get the NPS to change their attitudes about geocaching. This was obviously the reason Mtn-man held the CITO event we've been discussing. But this still doesn't show why you won't admit that you're wrong.

 

Read my posts and maybe....just maybe you'll see what I said and not what you want me to say...OK?

 

Your whole post is just as full of holes as was your brothers and I think you probably know this and I am merely wasting my time (which was exactly what I had hoped to head of, I really hate these round-and-rounds you two seem to enjoy)...but here goes...AGAIN:

 

KBI said he had proof that the NPS (or whoever he may have been talking about) was leaving trash and only picking up caches...RIGHT? Are we agreeing here so far? I said and STILL say that he can't prove this. He then posts pictures of a CITO event which does what? Proves there was indeed trash there? OK, I give you that. HOWEVER (and I'm certain you're able to understand this even if you want to pretend not to), do those pictures PROVE the trash was left there forever and ever or would have been if not for the CITO? Do you know for a fact that the NPS (or again, whoever your brother is speaking of here) NEVER planned to pick that trash up? Do you know for a fact that it wasn't ever documented and listed as a site in need of cleaning up and put on a schedule? HARDLY. So, can you please show me this great proof that you and KBI have BOTH spouted and touted as being the almighty smoking gun?? NO?

 

You have no idea and neither does KBI, this is and has been my point! Can you produce ANY proof that the NPS has ignored ANY piles of trash...ever...anywhere? Again, NOPE! You have no idea as to how the NPS or any other agency documents and attempts cleaning up. But, you and your brother can pretend you do all you wish, it CERTAINLY doesn't prove me wrong. My other point has been made enough, if you wish, you can PAY ATTENTION and read it again.

 

Oh, and as I said before, you bring up ONE instance as if this is how it is all over the USA...WOW, talk about painting with a very broad brush! So, care to show where I was...wrong, or would you rather admit you have no leg to stand on . Or, would you rather pretend that picture does indeed prove something?? I think I know the answer, but you could surprise me. However, I am MORE than done responding to you here, I have said ALL that I care to about this to you!!

[+bittsen]

I think this is the point in the thread where a usually moderator asks us to direct our responses to the topic and not at each other.

 

Hope I'm not stepping on any toes in pointing that out.

 

I agree. This is about the point.

 

OT.

I would think that with the numbers the geocaching community have, that there would be a base for a nice petetition to allow geocaching on all federal lands that are open to the public for "hunting", "Fishing", "bicycling", "Photography", "hiking", etc.

 

I'm confident that the fact that some FS departments encourage geocaching would help make the case.

 

It could be signed into law. Wouldn't that be great?

[+Rockin Roddy]

Just thought I'd toss in one minor point here.

 

The removal of caches seems to keep being compared and contrasted to the removal of trash, in the assumption that the reason the caches are being removed is that they are considered to be nothing but trash.

 

But there is another factor about caches that makes them very different from the trash that may be on site. Caches come along with an open invitation to others to come to the area to search for the cache.

Trash dumped on the site does not include any open invitation to anyone to come visit the trash pile.

 

So it's possible that part of the reason caches may be picked up first (ahead of the trash) is to help eliminate that open invitation to come to the spot. If the spot is a huge trash dump, maybe it's not such a great place for a cache anyway. It's also very easy to pick up a cache as compared to a huge pile of trash, which may require some in-depth planning to remove, especially if any of that trash needs special removal techniques. There are some chemicals that may even require removal of some earth if they have leaked out and soaked into the ground. Removal of a cache from any area that may have those kinds of trash would be a good thing, in my opinion.

 

And removal of any cache in any area where it is not welcome is also a good thing, to me. There are millions of acres of land out there where we can place caches and they are welcome to be there. Heck, there's probably even a few of them that have permission to be there!

 

I don't really believe this is the case, but it may have a bit of bearing on the situation, yes! I believe the reason to remove the caches is because the PTB do truly see caching as harmful to the area. Hey, they may even relate the trash heaps to cachers, who knows! The rest of that part of your comment is what I and others have said a few times, I very much agree!!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I think this is the point in the thread where a usually moderator asks us to direct our responses to the topic and not at each other.

 

Hope I'm not stepping on any toes in pointing that out.

 

I agree. This is about the point.

 

OT.

I would think that with the numbers the geocaching community have, that there would be a base for a nice petetition to allow geocaching on all federal lands that are open to the public for "hunting", "Fishing", "bicycling", "Photography", "hiking", etc.

 

I'm confident that the fact that some FS departments encourage geocaching would help make the case.

 

It could be signed into law. Wouldn't that be great?

 

Goes right back to my comment, change is made with work. If you want change, sitting back and moaning about it won't help, actively and productively working toward that end could just bring the change you desire! It has been PROVEN, I stand by this thought!

 

Good comment Bittsen, productive and helpful!

[+Renegade Knight]

I hate to interrupt a good argument to revisit an early post in the thread, but here goes anyway:

 

In post # 33 of this thread, I mentioned that the USFS typically won't even allow firefighting activities in a wilderness area. I also mentioned that I personally witnessed that during the 21 years I lived in the Plumas National Forest.

...

And one of those talking heads just revealed the origin of the fire: It started in a wilderness area more than a month ago and was just allowed to burn. How's that for forest management?...

 

Why would you fight fires in wilderness areas? You wouldn't. Fires are natural, Allowing the natural process to happen in wilderness is perfectly fine. No need to save my cache or an air strip if a fire happens along.

 

As for your logic. Where the fire started only matters if it has an impact on how bad the fire is where the people died. If by starting in the wilderness it was worse on the civilized side. Ok fair point.

[+Renegade Knight]

...millions of acres of land out there where we can place caches and they are welcome to be there....

I really dislike this logic. It welcomes the closing of land for our enjoyment. I see it used for all kinds of things.

 

As for your other comment (you aren't alone, but your post is the one I responded too) where the forest service is just doing it's job. While the forest service can no doubt point to a law that they claim authorizes them to remove the cache. I highly doubt it's specific to caching and thus they could just have easily done their jobs be leaving the cache in place and saying. "heck yeah, another thing to get folks off the couch and into nature!".

[+Rockin Roddy]

...millions of acres of land out there where we can place caches and they are welcome to be there....

I really dislike this logic. It welcomes the closing of land for our enjoyment. I see it used for all kinds of things.

 

As for your other comment (you aren't alone, but your post is the one I responded too) where the forest service is just doing it's job. While the forest service can no doubt point to a law that they claim authorizes them to remove the cache. I highly doubt it's specific to caching and thus they could just have easily done their jobs be leaving the cache in place and saying. "heck yeah, another thing to get folks off the couch and into nature!".

 

Unless they truly do view caching as harmful to the lands they are charged to take care of...

[Mushtang]

Read my posts and maybe....just maybe you'll see what I said and not what you want me to say...OK?

 

Your whole post is just as full of holes as was your brothers and I think you probably know this and I am merely wasting my time (which was exactly what I had hoped to head of, I really hate these round-and-rounds you two seem to enjoy)...but here goes...AGAIN:

 

KBI said he had proof that the NPS (or whoever he may have been talking about) was leaving trash and only picking up caches...RIGHT? Are we agreeing here so far? I said and STILL say that he can't prove this. He then posts pictures of a CITO event which does what? Proves there was indeed trash there? OK, I give you that. HOWEVER (and I'm certain you're able to understand this even if you want to pretend not to), do those pictures PROVE the trash was left there forever and ever or would have been if not for the CITO? Do you know for a fact that the NPS (or again, whoever your brother is speaking of here) NEVER planned to pick that trash up? Do you know for a fact that it wasn't ever documented and listed as a site in need of cleaning up and put on a schedule? HARDLY. So, can you please show me this great proof that you and KBI have BOTH spouted and touted as being the almighty smoking gun?? NO?

Nobody said that the NPS (or whoever runs that land) never ever planned on picking up the garbage. He only claimed that they'd grabbed the geocaches and failed to do anything about the trash which showed their anti-geocaching agenda. That's it. That's all he claimed. And that's what you asked for proof of.

 

This proof was provided to you, and yet you still refused to see it.

 

You have no idea and neither does KBI, this is and has been my point! Can you produce ANY proof that the NPS has ignored ANY piles of trash...ever...anywhere? Again, NOPE!

Yes. The proof has been delivered to you... by Mtn-man himself, that the trash remained in that location well past the point that the geocaches were removed. That's the only claim that KBI made, and that's the claim you suggested wasn't true.

 

You have no idea as to how the NPS or any other agency documents and attempts cleaning up. But, you and your brother can pretend you do all you wish, it CERTAINLY doesn't prove me wrong. My other point has been made enough, if you wish, you can PAY ATTENTION and read it again.

 

Oh, and as I said before, you bring up ONE instance as if this is how it is all over the USA...WOW, talk about painting with a very broad brush! So, care to show where I was...wrong, or would you rather admit you have no leg to stand on . Or, would you rather pretend that picture does indeed prove something?? I think I know the answer, but you could surprise me. However, I am MORE than done responding to you here, I have said ALL that I care to about this to you!!

Neither KBI or myself has ever claimed that the rest of the NPS behaves this way, only that this happened in this instance, and it really put the park service in a bad light. You still refuse to believe that it even happened once.

 

I'm not surprised that you're refusing to admit the truth, and I'm not surprised you're refusing to admit that you're wrong. But it will definitely surprise me if you're actually done responding here.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I hate to interrupt a good argument to revisit an early post in the thread, but here goes anyway:

 

In post # 33 of this thread, I mentioned that the USFS typically won't even allow firefighting activities in a wilderness area. I also mentioned that I personally witnessed that during the 21 years I lived in the Plumas National Forest.

...

And one of those talking heads just revealed the origin of the fire: It started in a wilderness area more than a month ago and was just allowed to burn. How's that for forest management?...

 

Why would you fight fires in wilderness areas? You wouldn't. Fires are natural, Allowing the natural process to happen in wilderness is perfectly fine. No need to save my cache or an air strip if a fire happens along.

 

As for your logic. Where the fire started only matters if it has an impact on how bad the fire is where the people died. If by starting in the wilderness it was worse on the civilized side. Ok fair point.

 

Actually, fires should be left to burn. Had smaller fires been left to burn 10 years ago, there'd not be the HUGE fire being fought now, the fuel for that fire woudn't be there to begin with! This is merely MHO and a repeat of what many, more informed, officials have stated...

[+Castle Mischief]

I think this is the point in the thread where a usually moderator asks us to direct our responses to the topic and not at each other.

 

Hope I'm not stepping on any toes in pointing that out.

 

I agree. This is about the point.

 

OT.

I would think that with the numbers the geocaching community have, that there would be a base for a nice petition to allow geocaching on all federal lands that are open to the public for "hunting", "Fishing", "bicycling", "Photography", "hiking", etc.

 

I'm confident that the fact that some FS departments encourage geocaching would help make the case.

 

It could be signed into law. Wouldn't that be great?

 

Sure that would be keen, but I don't think you're going to get the "don't leave anything" rule of the land managers and the "leave stuff behind" game to exist in the same space.

 

And I don't think that anybody should be using geocaching as the platform to address land usage, or should any one individual or group speak on behalf of cachers as a whole.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+Rockin Roddy]

I think this is the point in the thread where a usually moderator asks us to direct our responses to the topic and not at each other.

 

Hope I'm not stepping on any toes in pointing that out.

 

I agree. This is about the point.

 

OT.

I would think that with the numbers the geocaching community have, that there would be a base for a nice petition to allow geocaching on all federal lands that are open to the public for "hunting", "Fishing", "bicycling", "Photography", "hiking", etc.

 

I'm confident that the fact that some FS departments encourage geocaching would help make the case.

 

It could be signed into law. Wouldn't that be great?

 

Sure that would be keen, but I don't think you're going to get the "don't leave anything" rule of the land managers and the "leave stuff behind" game to exist in the same space.

 

And I don't think that anybody should be using geocaching as the platform to address land usage, or should any one individual or group speak on behalf of cachers as a whole.

 

Couldn't agree more, leave that up to the people who can do the best good for the cause. However, doing personal PR work (such as a CITO event) can't hurt, might even help! As for the beginning of that comment, cachers DO have a voice and should be allowed to be heard when it comes to land usage. I'm not sure I understand this part of your comment, are you saying cachers should just accept what they are told? I would have to disagree there, championing for a change is good as long as it's done respectfully, responsibly and with coordination with those who are better able to affect change!

[+mtn-man]

You could be right, but how would you know unless you do indeed try?

Um... Mtn-man DID indeed try. Haven't you been paying attention??? There WAS a CITO event even though the land managers threatened him with jail time if he tried to hide a cache in the area.

 

The land managers stepped OVER trash and had to look long and hard to find the geocaches in order to remove them, yet they didn't remove any of the garbage. Do you still refuse to believe this happened?

 

OMG, you're right Mushtang...they DID try. Once. On one of what...several dozens of typical situations? This proves WHAT? That everyone in the NPS etc are doing the same thing?? Get over that one time and maybe, just maybe, you'll see that I'm saying GIVE IT A TRY, it can't hurt you. Hey, it MAY even help!

 

Or, you can sit at your computer, moan about the mean old NPS peoples and complain to someone who couln't give a rip if you sit there and moan or not! Maybe that might help the situation? Possibly?

 

I'm not discounting Mtn-Man's and others' attempt, I am merely saying don't give up because it happened ONCE!

I've pretty much given up on hoping that people actually read what I write sometimes. If you read what I wrote, I said we did it twice (and gave the year above the photos). The second time I got the direct threat from them. Sorry, but I won't be back to clean up that mess again (there is still more there, but we made a heck of a dent). That's the NPS, not the FS though. Apples and oranges to the discussion.

 

 

 

I think this is the point in the thread where a usually moderator asks us to direct our responses to the topic and not at each other.

 

Hope I'm not stepping on any toes in pointing that out.

 

I agree. This is about the point.

 

OT.

I would think that with the numbers the geocaching community have, that there would be a base for a nice petetition to allow geocaching on all federal lands that are open to the public for "hunting", "Fishing", "bicycling", "Photography", "hiking", etc.

 

I'm confident that the fact that some FS departments encourage geocaching would help make the case.

 

It could be signed into law. Wouldn't that be great?

Let's do get back to the point.

Wilderness Areas and Forest Service managed areas.

 

We don't need a petition. The geocaches *are* allowed already in areas where the above things are allowed. The only difference is that Wilderness Areas prohibit bikes, yes. They are mechanical. You don't leave anything when you hunt, fish, take pictures or hike. You do when you geocache. They do not want you leaving anything. Simple. I have a multi that takes you into a Wilderness Area to get the clues. The final is outside of the Wilderness Area. Problem solved. I'm happy, they are happy, cache finders are happy. No angst. Just fun.

 

My Raven Cliffs Cache

[+Rockin Roddy]

You could be right, but how would you know unless you do indeed try?

Um... Mtn-man DID indeed try. Haven't you been paying attention??? There WAS a CITO event even though the land managers threatened him with jail time if he tried to hide a cache in the area.

 

The land managers stepped OVER trash and had to look long and hard to find the geocaches in order to remove them, yet they didn't remove any of the garbage. Do you still refuse to believe this happened?

 

OMG, you're right Mushtang...they DID try. Once. On one of what...several dozens of typical situations? This proves WHAT? That everyone in the NPS etc are doing the same thing?? Get over that one time and maybe, just maybe, you'll see that I'm saying GIVE IT A TRY, it can't hurt you. Hey, it MAY even help!

 

Or, you can sit at your computer, moan about the mean old NPS peoples and complain to someone who couln't give a rip if you sit there and moan or not! Maybe that might help the situation? Possibly?

 

I'm not discounting Mtn-Man's and others' attempt, I am merely saying don't give up because it happened ONCE!

I've pretty much given up on hoping that people actually read what I write sometimes. If you read what I wrote, I said we did it twice (and gave the year above the photos). The second time I got the direct threat from them. Sorry, but I won't be back to clean up that mess again (there is still more there, but we made a heck of a dent). That's the NPS, not the FS though. Apples and oranges to the discussion.

 

 

 

I think this is the point in the thread where a usually moderator asks us to direct our responses to the topic and not at each other.

 

Hope I'm not stepping on any toes in pointing that out.

 

I agree. This is about the point.

 

OT.

I would think that with the numbers the geocaching community have, that there would be a base for a nice petetition to allow geocaching on all federal lands that are open to the public for "hunting", "Fishing", "bicycling", "Photography", "hiking", etc.

 

I'm confident that the fact that some FS departments encourage geocaching would help make the case.

 

It could be signed into law. Wouldn't that be great?

Let's do get back to the point.

Wilderness Areas and Forest Service managed areas.

 

We don't need a petition. The geocaches *are* allowed already in areas where the above things are allowed. The only difference is that Wilderness Areas prohibit bikes, yes. They are mechanical. You don't leave anything when you hunt, fish, take pictures or hike. You do when you geocache. They do not want you leaving anything. Simple. I have a multi that takes you into a Wilderness Area to get the clues. The final is outside of the Wilderness Area. Problem solved. I'm happy, they are happy, cache finders are happy. No angst. Just fun.

 

My Raven Cliffs Cache

 

I read what you posted, twice! I posted ONCE because that's the time it was tried...ONCE! One time you guys tried to make a difference and you were slapped in the face for this...sad but true! I didn't mean you only tried one CITO or you gave up after trying once. On this ONE occurance, you were indeed slapped for trying to help, but I still say DON'T give up because of this ONE example. You must make the change you desire!

 

And yes, apples and oranges, THANKS for pointing that out more than ONCE! I had hoped others had seen that...

 

As for not allowing bikes, bikes do actually leave something (even if temporary)...TRACKS!! Sorry, had to do it!

 

I like the idea of allowing a stage of a cache as long as there's no physical container..but that'd have to be a mystery (or blue question mrk) and I know many people don't do them...

[Mushtang]

I have a multi that takes you into a Wilderness Area to get the clues. The final is outside of the Wilderness Area. Problem solved. I'm happy, they are happy, cache finders are happy. No angst. Just fun.

 

My Raven Cliffs Cache

This is still one of my favorite caches that I've found. I remember that day very well, and the 25 mile hike we went on to find your cache. Thanks for the memories.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Couldn't agree more, leave that up to the people who can do the best good for the cause. However, doing personal PR work (such as a CITO event) can't hurt, might even help! As for the beginning of that comment, cachers DO have a voice and should be allowed to be heard when it comes to land usage. I'm not sure I understand this part of your comment, are you saying cachers should just accept what they are told? I would have to disagree there, championing for a change is good as long as it's done respectfully, responsibly and with coordination with those who are better able to affect change!

 

Roddy, I wasn't specifically speaking to anything you've said in this thread. My comment was more directed to bittsen. I try to match up replies to specific points and quoted comments to make this clearer.

 

NOW I speaking to your quoted post above- championing for land usage, if that is your calling, is fine- just keep geocaching out of it. I am not saying that cachers shouldn't attempt to make changes where they feel it's appropriate, I am saying that I don't think cachers should try to push agendas wrapped around a geocaching tortilla of purpose.

 

Fine: "I want to stand up to the use of public lands for the reason that I AM the public and bladdy bla bla..."

 

Not so cool: "We Geocachers should have rights to this land to Geocache as we please because Geocachers are the kinds of people that Geocache with our Geocachity Geocachingness, bladdy bla bla..."

 

I can't speak to the complexities of organizing a CITO and how you might balance to two. I've never done it, and I'm smart to realize that I lack the skillz to herd that many cats. My hat is off to anybody that has.

 

 

(Neither of these examples should be construed as to represent my opinion in regard to how any land should be used by anybody.)

[+Renegade Knight]

...Unless they truly do view caching as harmful to the lands they are charged to take care of...

To hold that view they would also need to hold that hiking, and specimin collecting (both allowed in the wilderness though specimin collecting had a different name in the bill) are harmful.

[+bittsen]

Let's do get back to the point.

Wilderness Areas and Forest Service managed areas.

 

We don't need a petition. The geocaches *are* allowed already in areas where the above things are allowed. The only difference is that Wilderness Areas prohibit bikes, yes. They are mechanical. You don't leave anything when you hunt, fish, take pictures or hike. You do when you geocache. They do not want you leaving anything. Simple. I have a multi that takes you into a Wilderness Area to get the clues. The final is outside of the Wilderness Area. Problem solved. I'm happy, they are happy, cache finders are happy. No angst. Just fun.

 

My Raven Cliffs Cache

 

The forest service DOES remove caches from non wilderness areas as indicated by a few threads in these forums.

A petetition, presented to the right congresspeople, can rectify this. Additionally, if enough people who are interested in geocaching (whether or not members) presented a proposal to change the laws of wilderness areas to allow geocaching, it "could" be made into law to allow geocaching.

 

The term "leave no trace" should cause hunting, fishing, hiking, etc to be banned but it does not. Hunters leave the wilderness area short something of the food chain as well as spent ammo and likely casings from their bullets. Fishermen lose gear all the time. Hikers leave footprints and often more, even if they bury their poo.

 

Whether or not you think it should be done is irrelevant. You are one voice. If enough people stand on the opposite side of an issue as you, your voice won't matter much. (you being used generically, not specifically in the latter sentence).

[+Rockin Roddy]

...Unless they truly do view caching as harmful to the lands they are charged to take care of...

To hold that view they would also need to hold that hiking, and specimin collecting (both allowed in the wilderness though specimin collecting had a different name in the bill) are harmful.

 

I may agree, but I'm not the one to make this argument to. At any rate, whether we agree or not, some do see caching as harmful. Some still believe we bury our hides, some believe we deface areas (wiith good cause considering the finds I have made lately...OUCH).

[+Renegade Knight]

...They do not want you leaving anything. Simple. I have a multi that takes you into a Wilderness Area to get the clues. The final is outside of the Wilderness Area. Problem solved. I'm happy, they are happy, cache finders are happy. No angst. Just fun.

 

My Raven Cliffs Cache

 

Which problem did you solve? Certainly not the one where I pointed out that caching is a viable non consumptive land use in a wilderness area that's not being allowed.

 

That you go into a wilderness area to get clues for a multi cache and call it a solution merely ignores every other kind of viable cache.

 

While you and others are telling me that a cache violates the spirit of the wilderness, you are ignoring that it's merely a land use. Use means things are allowed. In 2 minutes of google I verfied that they do in fact maintain air strips, and cabins in wilderness. I didn't bother to look for items beyond that as they are far more obtrusive than a cache, and a cache is less obtrusive than other allowed uses.

 

There is nothing whatsoever in the law that precludes a cache. There are merely laws that if spun the right way could be used to remove them and yet those same laws spun another way would allow them. This entire issue, comes down to who's calling the shots in your area. The larger issue is if we can get caching to be formally allowed as the non comsumptive use it is.

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

Couldn't agree more, leave that up to the people who can do the best good for the cause. However, doing personal PR work (such as a CITO event) can't hurt, might even help! As for the beginning of that comment, cachers DO have a voice and should be allowed to be heard when it comes to land usage. I'm not sure I understand this part of your comment, are you saying cachers should just accept what they are told? I would have to disagree there, championing for a change is good as long as it's done respectfully, responsibly and with coordination with those who are better able to affect change!

 

Roddy, I wasn't specifically speaking to anything you've said in this thread. My comment was more directed to bittsen. I try to match up replies to specific points and quoted comments to make this clearer.

 

NOW I speaking to your quoted post above- championing for land usage, if that is your calling, is fine- just keep geocaching out of it. I am not saying that cachers shouldn't attempt to make changes where they feel it's appropriate, I am saying that I don't think cachers should try to push agendas wrapped around a geocaching tortilla of purpose.

 

Fine: "I want to stand up to the use of public lands for the reason that I AM the public and bladdy bla bla..."

 

Not so cool: "We Geocachers should have rights to this land to Geocache as we please because Geocachers are the kinds of people that Geocache with our Geocachity Geocachingness, bladdy bla bla..."

 

I can't speak to the complexities of organizing a CITO and how you might balance to two. I've never done it, and I'm smart to realize that I lack the skillz to herd that many cats. My hat is off to anybody that has.

 

 

(Neither of these examples should be construed as to represent my opinion in regard to how any land should be used by anybody.)

 

I understood the direction that comment was aimed, no worries!

 

I also agree with your follow-up. However, it would be hard to ask if we can use the area for caching UNLESS we specify what we want to use the area for (caching). Just saying that caching would need to be brought up in the conversation one way or another.

[+Renegade Knight]

Not ever federal agency follows the law of the land as intended by congress even when it's clear. They do sometimes employ underhanded methods to achieve their goals. Goals specificly against the law.

 

Here is a resolution relating to back country air strips and which mentions at a state level some of the underhanded methods used to circiumvent very clear law.

 

http://www.flyidaho.org/memor.asp?menuID=90~90

 

The point here is for the purists. Wilderness is a land use. Use is the key word. Cattle Grazing, Commercial Fishing, Cabins, Air Strips. Hunting, Fishing, Hiking, Road building and so on are all allowed uses in one form or another. Less comsumptive uses such as caching are both supported by the Wilderness act, and can be supported at the regional level directly. Now. That it's not is quite unfortunate.

[+KBI]

Just thought I'd toss in one minor point here.

 

The removal of caches seems to keep being compared and contrasted to the removal of trash, in the assumption that the reason the caches are being removed is that they are considered to be nothing but trash.

 

But there is another factor about caches that makes them very different from the trash that may be on site. Caches come along with an open invitation to others to come to the area to search for the cache.

Trash dumped on the site does not include any open invitation to anyone to come visit the trash pile.

 

So it's possible that part of the reason caches may be picked up first (ahead of the trash) is to help eliminate that open invitation to come to the spot.

Are you suggesting the Park Service folks have a policy of actively discouraging recreation in their National Recreation Area?

[+KBI]

... do those pictures PROVE the trash was left there forever and ever or would have been if not for the CITO? Do you know for a fact that the NPS (or again, whoever your brother is speaking of here) NEVER planned to pick that trash up? Do you know for a fact that it wasn't ever documented and listed as a site in need of cleaning up and put on a schedule? HARDLY.

I'll vouch for KBI on this sight unseen. I'll qualify it by saying that they don't ignore them, though KBI and others may not really worry about the difference between ignor and "do nothing at this time."

Roddy's backpedalling aside, you guys are suggesting that the folks who collected up those caches may have had every intention of returning later for the garbage piles.

 

For the sake of argument let’s assume for a moment that that was the case. Let’s assume the half-dozen or so ammo cans and lock-n-locks he (or they) collected up that day comprised the maximum amount of stuff he (or they) could carry away at the time, and that the garbage piles still remain on their official to-do list to take care of one of these days.

 

Fine. I accept that logic, but it still doesn’t address this question: Why climb over or walk around all that garbage, which nobody wants to be there, and take away ONLY the geocaches, which serve an actual, known recreational purpose? If he only had room in the back of his Park Service Jeep for those caches that day, then why didn’t he haul off a couple of those old tires instead?

 

Locating the garbage was easy as it was impossible not to see the huge mounds of it, yet locating the well-concealed Geocaches required time, patience and the use of a GPS unit. The garbage was also much closer to the parking area than the caches.

 

Nobody has given me any reason NOT to conclude that they specifically wanted to harass Geocachers that day.