Saving a cache

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Sometimes things go wrong.

 

For example, land managers may change jobs and suddenly the permission you thought you had goes away.

 

Locations that were thought not to need explicit permission turn out to require it.

 

Here's what I see happen quite often... an anger component comes into play on one side or the other, the land manager or the cacher, causing a failure of communication and sometimes a knee-jerk reaction that ends with the cache archived and hard feelings.

 

Sometimes these frustrations go public, and that isn't good for anyone.

 

As a scenario let me use a recent newspaper article where a historical society discovered and objected to a cache on their property.

 

The cache owner archived the cache and responded to the society's concern online.

 

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2009/10...sing-headaches/

 

So, what sounds like an interesting cache is gone and the historical society has what appears to be a brown view of geocaching... specifically in this case a concern for liability related to cachers.

 

I write this NOT to criticize what happened in this scenario but to ask cachers how they might have handled the situation so that permission may have been gained, a cache saved, and a good relationship built with the landowner.

 

Given a situation like this, how would you solve it?

Edited October 29, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+CM924]

Well obviously, the cacher should have gotten permission first. It is our responsibility to the land owner or caretaker to educate them and gain their trust.

 

That being said, this Historical Society is being rather short sighted about the whole thing. Geocaching is a great opportunity for them to raise awareness of their program.

[+bflentje]

I may have mouthed off the points that were valid but I certainly would not have taken ownership or apologized in such a public forum unless I were required to do so legally.

[glorkar]

I always feel that speaking on 'private' issues in a public forum is in bad taste.

I like that the CO disabled the cache, but I feel he should have made a more concerted effort to discuss it with the historical society. Maybe even discuss with them an alternate location that they feel comfortable with. My interpretation of the article is that the historical society is not against geocaching in general, just this cache specifically. They have concerns about people getting hurt in/by the pond near the cache. That is reasonable. If any one were to get hurt, they would be liable.

With proper communication, this cache could be saved.

[+Roland_oso]

In our modern world of lawsuits and liability, the first reaction of most muggle landowners and organizations will be to ban and prohibit geocaching. The only thing we can do is to use existing examples of organizations that have embraced our hobby and show them that caching can be beneficial to their cause.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Given a situation like this, how would you solve it?

 

If the Zoo changed director's my permission doesn't go away. Instutitional knowlege of it might, but I can fix that soon enough.

 

My prefered method of dealing with these kinds of things is face to face. You can cut through to the heart of the matter quickly by listening. Plus folks are normally more open to listening to you. If they aren't, it doesn't take long to figure that out.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+42at42]

I may have mouthed off the points that were valid but I certainly would not have taken ownership or apologized in such a public forum unless I were required to do so legally.

 

I disagree. Sometimes the best way to handle cranky old "fuddy duddies" for lack of a better term, is to be so nice to them it makes you feel sick. It shows others how wrong they are. If you shoot back, it will make people think badly of geocaching. Take the high road.

[CoyoteRed]

I would have contacted the new stewards and asked for a face-to-face meeting. I would have then explained who I had originally gotten permission from and then addressed the liability issue them. I would have explained that Recreational Statutes would cover any liabilities concerns unless they charged for admittance. If they still refused further permission, I would accept it, remove the cache, and move on. The next move on may part would be consider how bad I want a cache to take visitors to the property as an offset is a possibility.

 

As for the online part, I might have explained myself and the fact that stewards changed and the permission issue was no communicated to the new stewards. Rarely have I gotten formal written permission si it's understandable that verbal geocaching permission is very low on the priorities of the outgoing and incoming personnel.

 

A problem with well-meaning folks writing in a public forum is sometimes they get it wrong. "A Regular Guy" wrote: "Finally, there are rules to this that are clearly posted on the website. You CAN’T put caches high up in a tree. If you can’t reach it from the ground, it’s not allowed. You can’t bury caches. The cachers are not going to hurt anything."

 

The problem is caches high in a tree are allowed and cachers do hurt things. When someone reads his statement and finds out the contrary his statements are viewed as a bald face lie and they will paint all of us with the same brush. This makes it harder for the rest of us to stand in front of someone to ask for permission when they already think we are liars. Why should they believe us when so many lie?

[+ecanderson]

If the Zoo changed director's my permission doesn't go away. Instutitional knowlege of it might, but I can fix that soon enough.

 

My prefered method of dealing with these kinds of things is face to face. You can cut through to the heart of the matter quickly by listening. Plus folks are normally more open to listening to you. If they aren't, it doesn't take long to figure that out.

 

I think I'd see if I could get something with a signature on it during the FIRST face-to-face meeting, letting them know that would provide something to show someone who follows behind in the job. Remind your first contact that he/she might get promoted or something pleasant like that.

[+va griz]

Something close to that happened to one of my caches. I had the required permit from the county supervisor, but apparently he didn't explain that to the folks who ran the garden in which the cache was hidden. I had placed an easy cache just off the trail and steered cachers to it with a giveaway hint, but there were enough footprints that it caught the attention of some of the keepers. Official permission aside, I think if it is upsetting the "locals" (and that would include different people in different situations) it's best to archive it.

 

Here is another one I found that seems to have run into new opposition despite initial permission. Hard to judge since the CO seems to have left the game.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

A problem with well-meaning folks writing in a public forum is sometimes they get it wrong.

Excellent point. Perhaps we should add a printout of the Guidelines to our requesting-permission toolkit rather than trying to explain our take on them.

 

One thing I have to consciously monitor when I am asking for permission is not to speak for anyone but myself. I really want to say something like "Geocachers CITO..." but in fact only a small percentage regularly do in my experience, and those who do CITO seem to do it less as their find count climbs. I would love to be able to say "If I put a cache on your property it will attract great people who follow their own set of rules and respect your property and the environment" and I would be 99% right... but one cacher who doesn't do that and I would lose credibility with the landowner.

 

So, I know what I do, and I've never been turned down, and I've even several times gotten permission for someone's unpermitted cache to stay when I was confronted by a surprised landowner, but I am interested in y'alls approaches to the cited situation that would likely result in a 'win-win-win' for the cacher, landowner and the game.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Here is another one I found that seems to have run into new opposition despite initial permission. Hard to judge since the CO seems to have left the game.

 

Perhaps you saw something I can't see but based on your log:

 

That last looks like an opportunity to me. The VP made sure to mark the location so cachers knew there was nothing there to find. Unless the VP confiscated the cache I'd say he was looking out for cachers and could be approached by a new cache owner.

[CoyoteRed]

So, I know what I do, and I've never been turned down, and I've even several times gotten permission for someone's unpermitted cache to stay when I was confronted by a surprised landowner, but I am interested in y'alls approaches to the cited situation that would likely result in a 'win-win-win' for the cacher, landowner and the game.

I've mentioned in other threads that it's my experience that lower-level stewards are generally all for caches on their property, especially if they have a say of where it can go. When it reaches upper levels, then it's less than enthusiastic.

 

I, too, dislike when folks espouse CITO as a reason for putting a cache anywhere. First, it promises something that is likely to not be followed through. Second, as a landowner I might be thinking, "what, you think my area is trashy?"

 

I don't mind so much the idea of a CITO event, most love it! But as an everyday occurrence, not so much.

 

I'm also leery of saying caching brings a lot of folks to a park or place or whatever. Some stewards don't want a lot of extra traffic. This extra traffic could damage sensitive areas.

 

If it comes to having to sell the idea I'm more inclined--maybe because of where I'm putting the caches--talk up the interest of the area, and keep visits and impact low. For the most part, stewards are proud of their wards and like to show it off, but not at the expense of its very existence.

[+va griz]

Perhaps you saw something I can't see but based on your log:

 

You're probably right. I saw the caution "be discrete" mentioned on the cache page and the last couple strange logs and jumped to a questionable conclusion.

[+jeffbouldin]

I have one hidden on a local historical site, the Boyhood home of Sam Davis. I worked for months with the director on that hide. It is listed on the page along with the policies who gave permission.

[+jeffbouldin]

Saving a cache, When caches go bad

 

Wait a minute! Didn't I see a Primetime or 20\20 expose' on this?