Cemetery hides banned!

[+Rockin Roddy]

COOPERTOWNSHIP -- The treasure-hunt style activity of geocaching will not be permitted in Cooper Township cemeteries.

 

The Cooper Township Board voted unanimously Monday night, Oct. 12, to deny a request from a local resident who is part of a group that enjoys the hobby, which usually includes use of GPS devices.

 

Clerk Bonnie Sytsma insisted the woman making the request was respectful and she has no problems with what the group members do, but suggested a cemetery isn't the appropriate place to play hide and seek with interesting items.

 

``A cemetery is a sacred place,'' said Township Supervisor Jeff Sorensen. ``I don't think it's a place for games. I'm uncomfortable with allowing anybody to come and leave with who knows what.

 

``I think what they do is admirable, but I don't think a hobby is appropriate for a cemetery.''

 

Sytsma said she was told other groups already have staged such activities here before, which may make it necessary for the township to formulate a policy forbidding geocaching in any Cooper cemeteries.

 

Sad, but at least the cacher asked permission before just placing a cache!

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Yes, it is sad.

 

But if the Township owns the cemeteries in question, is now the law and we as geocachers should respect that, in order for ourselves to gain the respect of those not into geocaching.

 

Sadly too, we will probably see more of this type of regulating.

[+sbell111]

I don't even see this as 'regulating'. A cacher requested permission to hide a cache and it was denied. Oh, well.

 

The only thing that's troubling about this story is that the Township Supervisor obviously still doesn't understand the game. Perhaps if the cacher better better described geocaching to the board the results would have been different.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Caching in cemeteries has always been controversial.

 

If you're doing a puzzle where folks use the writing on stones as part of the solution it's likely not a problem, in daylight anyway, but put any actual containers outside the cemetery fence and you shouldn't have a problem.

 

It IS good that they asked for permission though.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Sad, but at least the cacher asked permission before just placing a cache!

 

Sad that the word game (which caching isn't) was lumped into the mix.

Now you can have a picnic in the cemetary and play checkers but can't partcipate in the casual activity of caching.

[+Renegade Knight]

...But if the Township owns the cemeteries in question, is now the law and we as geocachers should respect that, in order for ourselves to gain the respect of those not into geocaching....

 

Within limits.

 

If my caching buddy dies and is buried there and it was his wish that his tombstone have a cache compartment in it and a cache. I would honor my friends request above and beyond the law becaus the spirtit and intent of the law doesn't trump the reasonable wishes of those who they serve. Which is to say the dead, and their friends and familys (and every taxpayer supporting the cemetary by paying the tax to maintain it...)

 

The cemetary a couple of miles up the road would never allowed the ornamental trellis we installed in the cemetary where my wife's family was interred. Yet had they been buried closer to home we would have done the same. Entirly because it's how we chose to honor her parents and the pragmatism of the lawn crew can suck eggs.

[+Geoextreme87]

It is unfortunate that this scenario played out the way it is but perhaps it is for the best. By asking permission this cacher has prevented the possibilty of giving geocaching a bad name.

 

This is indicated by the township recognizing that geocaching as an "admirable" recreation. This should allow good relationships between cachers and the local government in future events (ie. placing caches and events in town squares and community parks for example).

 

So overall I congratulate the cacher who asked permission first before publishing and say we were just unlucky this time around.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Geoextreme87

[+sbell111]

It's too bad that by not completely explaining the hobby that the door got closed for future cachers who may have made a better presentation.

[+Geoextreme87]

It's too bad that by not completely explaining the hobby that the door got closed for future cachers who may have made a better presentation.

 

How do you know based off the information given that the cacher at the meeting didn't explain this to the best of their ability. Of what I read I think the explanation was satisfactory. The township felt that placing caches on cemetery land may not be appropriate based on religious and ethical concerns. Cemeteries have always been a gray line for caching. In this case the township said no. We as cachers should respect that move on.

[+bittsen]

Let me voice the unpopular opinion.

 

Good for them! They realized, before the fact, that geocaching can have a negative impact on the cemetary. Whether people might be upset by a "game" in the cemetary or for other reasons, they realized the negative impact it "could" have.

I have seen enough destruction at GZ on enough caches to know that there could be destruction at GZ in a cemetary. ANY destruction in a cemetary is unacceptable.

 

I think they did what they thought was best for the cemetary and those who believe it to be sacred.

[+wimseyguy]

...Sad, but at least the cacher asked permission before just placing a cache!

 

Sad that the word game (which caching isn't) was lumped into the mix.

Now you can have a picnic in the cemetary and play checkers but can't partcipate in the casual activity of caching.

 

I think that checkers would also fall into the game playing legislation and be prohibited.

[+Rockin Roddy]

It's too bad that by not completely explaining the hobby that the door got closed for future cachers who may have made a better presentation.

 

How do you know based off the information given that the cacher at the meeting didn't explain this to the best of their ability. Of what I read I think the explanation was satisfactory. The township felt that placing caches on cemetery land may not be appropriate based on religious and ethical concerns. Cemeteries have always been a gray line for caching. In this case the township said no. We as cachers should respect that move on.

 

Exactly.

[+Renegade Knight]

Let me voice the unpopular opinion.

 

Good for them! They realized, before the fact, that geocaching can have a negative impact on the cemetary. ...I think they did what they thought was best for the cemetary and those who believe it to be sacred.

 

You have two thoughts.

The first is true of all things that go into a cemetary including embalming and lawns. So while you are playing devils advocate I'd like you to consider the concept of acceptable impact that goes into every decisions made by anybody in any job, including running a cememtary.

 

The second thought I find interesting. Doing what is right and doing what you think is right are sometimes two differnet things. In my opinion those of us in the forums who have ironed out the unofficial general guidelines of what's ok in and around cemetarys have a far better grasp of what's right while the minority who have imposed a much larger ban aren't quite there yet, but it's their ground to manage.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Let me voice the unpopular opinion.

 

Good for them! They realized, before the fact, that geocaching can have a negative impact on the cemetary. Whether people might be upset by a "game" in the cemetary or for other reasons, they realized the negative impact it "could" have.

I have seen enough destruction at GZ on enough caches to know that there could be destruction at GZ in a cemetary. ANY destruction in a cemetary is unacceptable.

 

I think they did what they thought was best for the cemetary and those who believe it to be sacred.

 

Not only unpopular, but in MOST caches I've seen, also not well informed.

 

Most caches I have seen (or placed) in cemeteries have been either away from any graves OR outside of the manicured areas and placed in wooded spots on the fringe of the cemetery (most, definitely not all). I have not seen damage to a cemetery even though there are TONS of cemetery hides in this area and I have visited a LOT! I think you seriously underestimate the thoughtfulness of your fellow cachers, I doubt many would destroy a cemetery area in search of a cache, respect is often given (again, not always, but I've yet to see any damage due to cachers).

[+ScottKaren]

Let me voice the unpopular opinion.

 

Good for them! They realized, before the fact, that geocaching can have a negative impact on the cemetary. Whether people might be upset by a "game" in the cemetary or for other reasons, they realized the negative impact it "could" have.

I have seen enough destruction at GZ on enough caches to know that there could be destruction at GZ in a cemetary. ANY destruction in a cemetary is unacceptable.

 

I think they did what they thought was best for the cemetary and those who believe it to be sacred.

Sorry dude but I have to agree. So now they have two targets to throw stones at.

[+sbell111]

It's too bad that by not completely explaining the hobby that the door got closed for future cachers who may have made a better presentation.

 

How do you know based off the information given that the cacher at the meeting didn't explain this to the best of their ability. Of what I read I think the explanation was satisfactory. The township felt that placing caches on cemetery land may not be appropriate based on religious and ethical concerns. Cemeteries have always been a gray line for caching. In this case the township said no. We as cachers should respect that move on.

I based that on the fact that the township supervisor still apparently doesn't understand what this activity is.

[+sbell111]

Let me voice the unpopular opinion.

 

Good for them! They realized, before the fact, that geocaching can have a negative impact on the cemetary. Whether people might be upset by a "game" in the cemetary or for other reasons, they realized the negative impact it "could" have.

I have seen enough destruction at GZ on enough caches to know that there could be destruction at GZ in a cemetary. ANY destruction in a cemetary is unacceptable.

 

I think they did what they thought was best for the cemetary and those who believe it to be sacred.

If the township thought that this activity would have caused any 'destruction', they would have happily cited that reason.

[+bittsen]

Let me voice the unpopular opinion.

 

Good for them! They realized, before the fact, that geocaching can have a negative impact on the cemetary. Whether people might be upset by a "game" in the cemetary or for other reasons, they realized the negative impact it "could" have.

I have seen enough destruction at GZ on enough caches to know that there could be destruction at GZ in a cemetary. ANY destruction in a cemetary is unacceptable.

 

I think they did what they thought was best for the cemetary and those who believe it to be sacred.

If the township thought that this activity would have caused any 'destruction', they would have happily cited that reason.

 

Why? The "possible" destruction is arguable. You can't argue with their reasons. You can try but since they cited their own definition, you can't argue with it.

[+Kyle98632]

While I have seen some interesting cemetery caches, I certainly can understand an area not allowing caching in one out of concern.

[+ventura_kids]

The other day while caching in a local cemetery.....

I noticed a man drinking beer, cooking on a bar-be-que, and playing frizbee with his kids.

They ended the day by leaving a pile of fake flowers near the gravesite.

 

I signed the logsheet, placed the cache back in the Y of the tree, and moved along quietly......without permission.

[+ventura_kids]

....and I forgot about the Saticoy cemetery...... where the group of gangbangers daily sell drugs along the back road inside the cemetery. We skipped that cache....it seemed unsafe (and we had no permission).

 

Actually I don't really like hunting in cemeterys for caches.... it seems awkward at best.

[+JohnE5]

I feel weird about it too. Maybe by the time I die they will make a grave stone with a cache built in. I've heard of that from some where.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Why? The "possible" destruction is arguable. You can't argue with their reasons. You can try but since they cited their own definition, you can't argue with it.

 

That argument can be made to close the cemetary from public access. It actually does close off other areas from public access. At which point I'd argue that public money should quit paying for it be it Cemetary or other area.

[+baloo&bd]

Yes, it is sad.

 

But if the Township owns the cemeteries in question, is now the law and we as geocachers should respect that, in order for ourselves to gain the respect of those not into geocaching.

 

Sadly too, we will probably see more of this type of regulating.

Equally said is that they do not understand the purpose of a cemetery and that checkers, picnics, geocaching etc. are quite appropriate

[+Team Cotati]

The other day while caching in a local cemetery.....

I noticed a man drinking beer, cooking on a bar-be-que, and playing frizbee with his kids.

They ended the day by leaving a pile of fake flowers near the gravesite.

 

I signed the logsheet, placed the cache back in the Y of the tree, and moved along quietly......without permission.

 

Were you the owner of that cache who had made a really great presentation to the owners of the cemetery?

 

Or is there some other 'permission' that you are speaking about?

 

It is all in the presentation. Popular theory has it that most all cemeteries would approve cache placement within their boundaries were the 'presentation' done in a professional manner or some such.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Team Cotati

[YCF]

Yes, it is sad.

 

But if the Township owns the cemeteries in question, is now the law and we as geocachers should respect that, in order for ourselves to gain the respect of those not into geocaching.

 

Sadly too, we will probably see more of this type of regulating.

Equally said is that they do not understand the purpose of a cemetery and that checkers, picnics, geocaching etc. are quite appropriate

 

I wouldn't play games (no matter the sort) in a cemetery out of respect for others. It is a place where dead loved ones are laid to rest and many consider this as sacred - like a church.

I haven't ever seen people BBQing or having a picnic in a cemetery...

 

They asked, they were refused. End of story.

Afterall, isn't it a requirement that the land owner be asked for permission?

[Clan Riffster]

I haven't ever seen people BBQing or having a picnic in a cemetery...

But I've seen folks BBQing and having picnics on church property.

Just sayin'...

 

I really like RK's concept of placing a cache in his buddies headstone.

When you submit it, you could say in complete sincerity, that the land owner gave his explicit permission.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

It sounds like the concept of Geocaching was pitched as "a hi-tech game of hide and seek" which it is often described as.

 

For the average non-cacher the image this probably conjours up is one of young people running around the graveyard and over graves hiding and finding little boxes hidden everywhere. But we know that not to be the case.

 

Had it been pitched as "orienteering with a GPSr" and the rule explained that only one cache may be placed within 160m of another cache (making most cemeteraries able to hold one cache only), not to mention that average visits will peter out less than 1 a day, then they may have got an approval.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Most caches I have seen (or placed) in cemeteries have been either away from any graves OR outside of the manicured areas and placed in wooded spots on the fringe of the cemetery (most, definitely not all). I have not seen damage to a cemetery even though there are TONS of cemetery hides in this area and I have visited a LOT! I think you seriously underestimate the thoughtfulness of your fellow cachers, I doubt many would destroy a cemetery area in search of a cache, respect is often given (again, not always, but I've yet to see any damage due to cachers).

 

Most of the caches that I have seen in cemeteries have also been around the edges and away from graves and did not have any damage around that was any more than I'd seen at other caches.

 

However, of all the caches that I have found, the one cache (actually, I DNFd it) that had the most surrounding damage to the environment was, in fact, in a cemetery.

[+dakin55]

Destruction in cemetaries, I do these caches and if this were the reason we would ban most people from visiting! I have never seen so much garbage in my life as in the bushes at cementaries, broken headstones tosses away by the " groundskeepers" plastic flowers, pots and fences. I visit alot of pioneer cementaries and feel the need to go take some cement and fix some of the old headstones that i see broken, But figure I am overstepping my boundaries. I have often thought I should contact someone to try to get permission then realize that if the caretakers of these places cannot be bothered to do the job as most of these have a board that "oversees them" why should I get involved!

 

Sorry for the rant and I am sure this stirred the pot, but I agree caching is no differnet than a game of checkers and both should be allowed!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I've visited cemeteries where it's obvious kids have played. I've visited cemeteries where they either start or end their local parades from/at. I've been to a cemetery where they re-enacted a civil war on the grounds. I've seen people picnic in cemeteries.

 

People use cemeteries for a whole slew of reasons other than simply mourning their lost loved ones. The damage done by a respectful cacher wouldn't likely be close to what some of these other activities do.

 

IF the cache owner is respectful as well (and most owners are), the cache will be placed in a proper and respectful location and fashion. If you happen to find a location disrespectful, you can always just walk away!!

 

Back to the topic, I think going caching with some of those who voted against the hides in cemeteries would go a LONG ways to dismissing their concerns. And yes, a full and complete explanation of caching would be best. However, I don't see where this cacher didn't give it her best! At any rate, asking will have likely opened the eyes of some of those non-cachers and being polite and helpful gave our activity a good light! it's a small step, but it is a step in the right direction!!

 

Knowing they're thinking about forming a policy on caching, the next step should be to get a voice in the process and try to steer the policy to being favorable to all.

[+Team Cotati]

I've visited cemeteries where it's obvious kids have played. I've visited cemeteries where they either start or end their local parades from/at. I've been to a cemetery where they re-enacted a civil war on the grounds. I've seen people picnic in cemeteries.

 

People use cemeteries for a whole slew of reasons other than simply mourning their lost loved ones. The damage done by a respectful cacher wouldn't likely be close to what some of these other activities do.

 

IF the cache owner is respectful as well (and most owners are), the cache will be placed in a proper and respectful location and fashion. If you happen to find a location disrespectful, you can always just walk away!!

 

Back to the topic, I think going caching with some of those who voted against the hides in cemeteries would go a LONG ways to dismissing their concerns. And yes, a full and complete explanation of caching would be best. However, I don't see where this cacher didn't give it her best! At any rate, asking will have likely opened the eyes of some of those non-cachers and being polite and helpful gave our activity a good light! it's a small step, but it is a step in the right direction!!

 

Knowing they're thinking about forming a policy on caching, the next step should be to get a voice in the process and try to steer the policy to being favorable to all.

 

Makes me wonder. Why cemeteries grant permission for uses that obviously cause damage to their grounds but then deny permission to the simple non-damaging activity of geocaching. There must me a natural bias against geocaching.