Nosey Neighbors

[+Harry Dolphin]

It also seems the trail in Gresham is closed from 8pm to 6am in the winter.

Closed ??

 

Yeah, Gresham is a funny city. Lots of police tickets issued but very high crime rates.

 

Take that as you will.

 

So. You were ignoring the park rules, by illegally being on the trail after closing hours. For a cache that is hidden on private property. And you complain about the nosey neighbor and the police?

Somehow, I am having difficulty finding sympathy.

 

As to riparian rights: Laws, of course, vary. In New Jersey, the stream bed is public right of way. The land on either side of the stream bed is owned by someone. If by a private person, you probably have the right to walk up the stream bed, but not to walk on the land next to it. Your laws may vary.

[+bittsen]

Yeah, Gresham is a funny city. Lots of police tickets issued but very high crime rates.

 

Take that as you will.

 

So. You were ignoring the park rules, by illegally being on the trail after closing hours. For a cache that is hidden on private property. And you complain about the nosey neighbor and the police?

Somehow, I am having difficulty finding sympathy.

 

As to riparian rights: Laws, of course, vary. In New Jersey, the stream bed is public right of way. The land on either side of the stream bed is owned by someone. If by a private person, you probably have the right to walk up the stream bed, but not to walk on the land next to it. Your laws may vary.

 

Lets back up a bit.

I was NOT on the trail that was (possibly) closed after hours. I was on a PUBLIC road. The neighbors got their panties in a wad because I was NEAR their property while on a public road.

[+FunnyNose]

And the comment form the cache owner just after they reenabled it and just before it got archived is reprehensible.

 

"Heck with it. Just be nice to the neighbors when you are there."

 

I hope they read the guidelines a few times before they place another cache.

[knowschad]

Lets back up a bit.

I was NOT on the trail that was (possibly) closed after hours. I was on a PUBLIC road. The neighbors got their panties in a wad because I was NEAR their property while on a public road.

No... neighbors "got their panties in a wad" because there had been a series of break-ins in the neighborhood and they saw somebody lurking around in the dark near their homes. I would probably be calling the cops, too, if not loading my weapon.

I don't care what you explained to me about something that you claim is called "geo-whatsing" or what is public property. They felt at risk and that trumps public property.

Edited February 9, 2010 by knowschad

[+bittsen]

Lets back up a bit.

I was NOT on the trail that was (possibly) closed after hours. I was on a PUBLIC road. The neighbors got their panties in a wad because I was NEAR their property while on a public road.

No... neighbors "got their panties in a wad" because there had been a series of break-ins in the neighborhood and they saw somebody lurking around in the dark near their homes. I would probably be calling the cops, too, if not loading my weapon.

I don't care what you explained to me about something that you claim is called "geo-whatsing" or what is public property. They felt at risk and that trumps public property.

 

No, the neighbors got angsty because I was "near" their property after they had had a few break-ins in the not so distant past. Not "because" there had been break-ins.

 

In other words, they were angsty.

 

It's all moot anyhow because the cache is archived even though it was never on that womans property (unfortunately the coords said it was).

 

It's all good

[+uxorious]

As to riparian rights: Laws, of course, vary. In New Jersey, the stream bed is public right of way. The land on either side of the stream bed is owned by someone. If by a private person, you probably have the right to walk up the stream bed, but not to walk on the land next to it. Your laws may vary.

 

It is my understanding that the laws concerning the public right of way on a stream bed have to do with the old laws of navigable waterways. There are exceptions, but in general you should be able to walk the stream bed,up to the normal high water mark.

 

I own creek front property here in Washington. My property line is the center of the creek, but I still have no right to stop anyone from walking the creek. (as long as they stay within the normal high water area. )

 

It has been a few years since I have looked into this, but the rules were Federal not state.

 

I was also told at the time, if you are wading and fishing up the middle of a creek through a farmer's field, you have a right to be there. However, if the farmer has a shotgun you might want to just leave.

[knowschad]

Lets back up a bit.

I was NOT on the trail that was (possibly) closed after hours. I was on a PUBLIC road. The neighbors got their panties in a wad because I was NEAR their property while on a public road.

No... neighbors "got their panties in a wad" because there had been a series of break-ins in the neighborhood and they saw somebody lurking around in the dark near their homes. I would probably be calling the cops, too, if not loading my weapon.

I don't care what you explained to me about something that you claim is called "geo-whatsing" or what is public property. They felt at risk and that trumps public property.

No, the neighbors got angsty because I was "near" their property after they had had a few break-ins in the not so distant past. Not "because" there had been break-ins.

.

Huh? I'm afraid I don't see the difference. There had been a few break-ins in the not so distant past, they saw you out there, "prowling around in the dark" (from their point of view)... who wouldn't get "angsty"? I'll bet you would be loading your weapon of choice, too! While you're calling the cops. I'm sorry, but I can't side with you on this one. They were in the right in calling the cops. They did the right thing. I'm not gonna be calling them "nosey" for what they felt was protecting their property and possibly their well-being.

[+thedeadpirate]

Lets back up a bit.

I was NOT on the trail that was (possibly) closed after hours. I was on a PUBLIC road. The neighbors got their panties in a wad because I was NEAR their property while on a public road.

No... neighbors "got their panties in a wad" because there had been a series of break-ins in the neighborhood and they saw somebody lurking around in the dark near their homes. I would probably be calling the cops, too, if not loading my weapon.

I don't care what you explained to me about something that you claim is called "geo-whatsing" or what is public property. They felt at risk and that trumps public property.

No, the neighbors got angsty because I was "near" their property after they had had a few break-ins in the not so distant past. Not "because" there had been break-ins.

.

Huh? I'm afraid I don't see the difference. There had been a few break-ins in the not so distant past, they saw you out there, "prowling around in the dark" (from their point of view)... who wouldn't get "angsty"? I'll bet you would be loading your weapon of choice, too! While you're calling the cops. I'm sorry, but I can't side with you on this one. They were in the right in calling the cops. They did the right thing. I'm not gonna be calling them "nosey" for what they felt was protecting their property and possibly their well-being.

 

Frankly, if I ever see a green dragon snooping around my property I'm shooting first and making BBQ later.

[+bittsen]

Huh? I'm afraid I don't see the difference. There had been a few break-ins in the not so distant past, they saw you out there, "prowling around in the dark" (from their point of view)... who wouldn't get "angsty"? I'll bet you would be loading your weapon of choice, too! While you're calling the cops. I'm sorry, but I can't side with you on this one. They were in the right in calling the cops. They did the right thing. I'm not gonna be calling them "nosey" for what they felt was protecting their property and possibly their well-being.

 

I don't want to keep going back and forth on this. Look at an aerial map to see how close I was to any houses. For reference I was 4 feet from the corner of the bridge in my car when the neighbors felt I was suspicious.

[+thedeadpirate]

Huh? I'm afraid I don't see the difference. There had been a few break-ins in the not so distant past, they saw you out there, "prowling around in the dark" (from their point of view)... who wouldn't get "angsty"? I'll bet you would be loading your weapon of choice, too! While you're calling the cops. I'm sorry, but I can't side with you on this one. They were in the right in calling the cops. They did the right thing. I'm not gonna be calling them "nosey" for what they felt was protecting their property and possibly their well-being.

 

I don't want to keep going back and forth on this. Look at an aerial map to see how close I was to any houses. For reference I was 4 feet from the corner of the bridge in my car when the neighbors felt I was suspicious.

 

I don't think you are understanding what is being said.

 

Regardless of whether or not you were there legally or whether or not the cache was on private property or not and regardless of whether the CO had written permission or not, it's completely reasonable for a neighbor to get antsy about someone acting suspicious after dark when they have experienced break-ins in the area recently.

 

We haven't had any break-ins around here and I would be checking out vehicles parking at the corner of my yard at 9pm at night. That's completely reasonable.

 

However, I can't say that I would call the cops. Especially if I actually spoke to the folks acting suspicious. But then again, these people appear to feel that the cache is in fact on private property and if you refused to leave, I might call the police.

 

Of course none of us were there and we have no idea how everything actually went down. Given what I know about some things around here and how upset the neighbors obviously are, I gotta wonder just what went down.

[+bittsen]

I don't think you are understanding what is being said.

 

Regardless of whether or not you were there legally or whether or not the cache was on private property or not and regardless of whether the CO had written permission or not, it's completely reasonable for a neighbor to get antsy about someone acting suspicious after dark when they have experienced break-ins in the area recently.

 

We haven't had any break-ins around here and I would be checking out vehicles parking at the corner of my yard at 9pm at night. That's completely reasonable.

 

However, I can't say that I would call the cops. Especially if I actually spoke to the folks acting suspicious. But then again, these people appear to feel that the cache is in fact on private property and if you refused to leave, I might call the police.

 

Of course none of us were there and we have no idea how everything actually went down. Given what I know about some things around here and how upset the neighbors obviously are, I gotta wonder just what went down.

 

I know what you are saying. You are saying they are understandably paranoid. I understand the reason they are paranoid.

Everything went down as I said. At first the neighbors said it was no big deal to be parked where I was but suggested a better place to park 25 or so feet away so I moved my car and waited for an email to come through. They drove by and back again while I was sitting in my car (on public property, mind you) and then they called the police.

I hadn't moved when the police showed up and, as I said, the police were OK with me, where I was, what I was doing, etc.

 

I told the police the same thing I had told the neighbors. The neighbors were just paranoid (understandably so).

[+Sileny Jizda]

If I were a nosey neighbor that just called the police and told someone to get away from my property even though I knew they were on public property I would use the "But we've had break-ins recently" excuse to cover my arse. It's a nice, neat, catch all to give you a polite get the he double toothpicks out of here warning that has the appearance of teeth should the law get involved. I've read often the "break-in" excuse. It's become so common I have more reason to doubt it than believe it.

 

A neighboring county in our area is attempting to make a rails to trails deal. The farmers in the area that don't like it have tried every twist in the book to shut it down from potential terrorism to high crime stats to prevent it. In the end they just don't want it going through their perceived idea of their property and I wouldn't be surprised to see the cops get called out there and complaints lodged every time they can get away with it just so they can prove a point.

[+Renegade Knight]

Probably Democrats

 

Lol... says the party who wants to say who i can and can't marry....

 

Both parties want to say that. They just include and exclude a different list. So do most people that matter. What's your point?

Edited February 9, 2010 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...Last night some nosey neighbors called the police on me AFTER I had talked to them and explained why I was there, on public property, looking for a cache. ...

 

They did exactly as they would have been trained to do had they had handy post 9/11 "how to spot a suspicious peson" training. They put you at ease that all was well so you (as a suspect person) would go about your business and leave them alone. Then they called the police when they were save. It saved them from a confrontation and got the job done.

 

There are a few lessons here but the one for you is that your discussion didn't go as well as it could have and the perhaps you thought it did?

[+DragonsWest]

Why do people have to be so nosey.

 

Maybe nosey isn't the right word, maybe it is.

 

Last night some nosey neighbors called the police on me AFTER I had talked to them and explained why I was there, on public property, looking for a cache. It wouldn't bother me if the public property was next to theirs but it was on a road that led to their property. Their property (according to the maps) is about 300 feet away.

 

Today they signed up for an account to log 2 finds on the cache and post a note that misquoted me.

 

The CO disabled the cache. The CO is new and this is a pretty big deterrent for someone new to the hobby.

 

Why do people feel the need to be so nosy and controlling?

 

My friend Will came up with the best name for these people: The No Fun Club

 

This means if they aren't having fun, nobody else is allowed to.

 

They may be nosey people who spoil your geocaching fun, call to have your car towed because it's in a Permit Only section of an otherwise mostly empty street, come out and lecture you on anything from lurking about to littering, purposefully muggle your cache or the one you were looking for, report you as a person of interest to the child molester hotline because you were seen walking in circles in a park where children were present, stalk you around a park to see what nefarious activity you are up to and whether it might get their name in the news for saving countless lives from your diabolical plot, etc.

 

There are those who think we, the geocachers have a screw loose.

 

Then there are The No Fun Club. Those worry me, as the people who would strive to take my rights away so they can feel more secure in knowing I can't have fun anymore.

 

Who has the screw loose?

Edited February 9, 2010 by DragonsWest

[+uxorious]

If I were a nosey neighbor that just called the police and told someone to get away from my property even though I knew they were on public property I would use the "But we've had break-ins recently" excuse to cover my arse. It's a nice, neat, catch all to give you a polite get the he double toothpicks out of here warning that has the appearance of teeth should the law get involved. I've read often the "break-in" excuse. It's become so common I have more reason to doubt it than believe it.

 

A neighboring county in our area is attempting to make a rails to trails deal. The farmers in the area that don't like it have tried every twist in the book to shut it down from potential terrorism to high crime stats to prevent it. In the end they just don't want it going through their perceived idea of their property and I wouldn't be surprised to see the cops get called out there and complaints lodged every time they can get away with it just so they can prove a point.

 

If you knew they were on public property you would not have the right to tell anyone to get out of there. You would have the right to call the police, and let them decide if the person needs to get out of there. It would matter not, how many break-ins have been in the area.

 

You see someone suspicious, you should call the police. Nothing wrong with that, it's the right thing to do. You might even let them know you are calling the police. But if they are on public property it is not your place to tell them to leave, no matter how close they are to your property.

[+DragonsWest]

You see someone suspicious, you should call the police. Nothing wrong with that, it's the right thing to do. You might even let them know you are calling the police. But if they are on public property it is not your place to tell them to leave, no matter how close they are to your property.

 

This may seem safe and sane, but in practice it's often better to just observe and employ some common sense. Sometimes a car driving around and around and then parking is just a lost driver.

 

I've been signaled to pull to the kerb in Chicago and Detroit by LOEs wondering what the devil I'm up to with my slow driving. "Sorry officer, I'm just trying to make out the street names (and where the actual lanes in Detroit, as the intersection was of 5 streets and the paint was long since worn from the pave.)"

 

Seems caution is suspicious activity, too.

[+uxorious]

You see someone suspicious, you should call the police. Nothing wrong with that, it's the right thing to do. You might even let them know you are calling the police. But if they are on public property it is not your place to tell them to leave, no matter how close they are to your property.

 

This may seem safe and sane, but in practice it's often better to just observe and employ some common sense. Sometimes a car driving around and around and then parking is just a lost driver.

 

I've been signaled to pull to the kerb in Chicago and Detroit by LOEs wondering what the devil I'm up to with my slow driving. "Sorry officer, I'm just trying to make out the street names (and where the actual lanes in Detroit, as the intersection was of 5 streets and the paint was long since worn from the pave.)"

 

Seems caution is suspicious activity, too.

 

Notice I did say you "might" even let them know you have call the police. However, I agree, if I saw someone acting suspicious, I would likely just observe and employ some common sense.

 

My point was, if it comes to telling them to leave, that is not my right. If I feel the need to do more than observe, I would call the police. They are the ones who have the right to decide if the person needs to leave, not the local property owners. (If they are on public property)

[+bflentje]

Lets back up a bit.

I was NOT on the trail that was (possibly) closed after hours. I was on a PUBLIC road. The neighbors got their panties in a wad because I was NEAR their property while on a public road.

No... neighbors "got their panties in a wad" because there had been a series of break-ins in the neighborhood and they saw somebody lurking around in the dark near their homes. I would probably be calling the cops, too, if not loading my weapon.

I don't care what you explained to me about something that you claim is called "geo-whatsing" or what is public property. They felt at risk and that trumps public property.

 

I thought you were a pacifist??

[knowschad]

Lets back up a bit.

I was NOT on the trail that was (possibly) closed after hours. I was on a PUBLIC road. The neighbors got their panties in a wad because I was NEAR their property while on a public road.

No... neighbors "got their panties in a wad" because there had been a series of break-ins in the neighborhood and they saw somebody lurking around in the dark near their homes. I would probably be calling the cops, too, if not loading my weapon.

I don't care what you explained to me about something that you claim is called "geo-whatsing" or what is public property. They felt at risk and that trumps public property.

 

I thought you were a pacifist??

Notice I never said what that weapon was.

 

Edited February 9, 2010 by knowschad

[+DragonsWest]

Lets back up a bit.

I was NOT on the trail that was (possibly) closed after hours. I was on a PUBLIC road. The neighbors got their panties in a wad because I was NEAR their property while on a public road.

No... neighbors "got their panties in a wad" because there had been a series of break-ins in the neighborhood and they saw somebody lurking around in the dark near their homes. I would probably be calling the cops, too, if not loading my weapon.

I don't care what you explained to me about something that you claim is called "geo-whatsing" or what is public property. They felt at risk and that trumps public property.

 

I thought you were a pacifist??

 

Could try to employ some psychology...

 

"I'm not up to no good, I assure you. If you call the police, please bear in mind you may be calling them away from a situation where they may be needed. They're your/our police, to serve and protect you/us, give them the chance to do their job without wasting their time."

[+thedeadpirate]

Notice I never said what that weapon was.

 

 

That is an awesome toy!

[Andronicus]

As to riparian rights: Laws, of course, vary. In New Jersey, the stream bed is public right of way. The land on either side of the stream bed is owned by someone. If by a private person, you probably have the right to walk up the stream bed, but not to walk on the land next to it. Your laws may vary.

 

Up here in Canada, I'm not sure if it is federal law or provicial. In Alberta, the normal high water mark is the edge of the public land. However, there are exeptions when the property title states otherwise. This is due to a very old property. I guess if the title was writen up in the 1800s, and not subdivided since it may state something about right to the creekbed. There wasn't much here in Alberta in the 1800s, so not much property would be like that. We still had wood post forts for traiding with the natives in the 1870s.

 

Rocky Mountain House Fort

Rocky Mountain House Fort used until 1875

 

A while back I had a fight with a lady at a beach. She claimed it was a private beach, and I said "No, up to the high water mark (the end of the sand, how else did it get there? And I have seen the water, more than once, higher than the sand at that beach.) was public lands." She said she was special. I guess I should have tolder her to shove off unless she could show me the property title that said otherwise. Since it was a newish condo development, I am quite sure that the title would not be old enough to include the exeption.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Andronicus

[+bittsen]

A while back I had a fight with a lady at a beach. She claimed it was a private beach, and I said "No, up to the high water mark (the end of the sand, how else did it get there? And I have seen the water, more than once, higher than the sand at that beach.) was public lands." She said she was special. I guess I should have tolder her to shove off unless she could show me the property title that said otherwise. Since it was a newish condo development, I am quite sure that the title would not be old enough to include the exeption.

 

We have had so many people in Oregon claim that the beach was their property but it's not. I don't even think there are any "old" properties that allow the beach to be owned.

People used to put up signs stating the beach was private but the government stepped in. What happened after that? The property owners adjacent to the beach managed to find some reason to list the beach as a "protected" area so people couldn't go there but then the property owners listed themselves as the caretakers of the protected areas.

 

Imagine how I, the public, felt when one day I wasn't allowed to fly my kites where I had always flown them before.

 

People can be VERY selfish and arrogant with their selfishness.

[+klossner]

It is my understanding that the laws concerning the public right of way on a stream bed have to do with the old laws of navigable waterways. There are exceptions, but in general you should be able to walk the stream bed, up to the normal high water mark.

You can do that only if the stream has been determined to be navigable. Johnson Creek is not navigable -- it's not big enough to support river traffic. The relevant Coast Guard report is here.

[+uxorious]

It is my understanding that the laws concerning the public right of way on a stream bed have to do with the old laws of navigable waterways. There are exceptions, but in general you should be able to walk the stream bed, up to the normal high water mark.

You can do that only if the stream has been determined to be navigable. Johnson Creek is not navigable -- it's not big enough to support river traffic. The relevant Coast Guard report is here.

 

"Navigability determinations made by the Coast Guard are for the purposes of exercising

Coast Guard authority and jurisdiction only. They should not be construed as determinative

of jurisdiction under admiralty and general maritime law, state law, or for jurisdiction by other

federal agencies (such as the Army Corps of Engineers)."

 

This is for the Coast Guard. Most small creeks and rivers are under other jurisdictions. As to not being big enough to support river traffic, it doesn't have to be big enough to more than wade to be considered navigable in some definitions. The creek I live on isn't big enough to float an inner tube in the summer, but it is still navigable.(It is a salmon creek, and some people have managed to catch a few trout out of it.)

 

It has been many years since I looked into this and at that time we were trying to find out the laws for fishing. Now that I live on a creek I should go back and study it again.

[knowschad]

Notice I never said what that weapon was.

That is an awesome toy!

Apparently, there is a Signal version as well:

OK... sorry for the diversion. Now... back to your regularily scheduled episode of "Nosey Neighbors".

[+DragonsWest]

We have had so many people in Oregon claim that the beach was their property but it's not. I don't even think there are any "old" properties that allow the beach to be owned.

People used to put up signs stating the beach was private but the government stepped in. What happened after that? The property owners adjacent to the beach managed to find some reason to list the beach as a "protected" area so people couldn't go there but then the property owners listed themselves as the caretakers of the protected areas.

 

Imagine how I, the public, felt when one day I wasn't allowed to fly my kites where I had always flown them before.

 

People can be VERY selfish and arrogant with their selfishness.

 

Remember this the next time there is a plan to set aside some lands for public parks or open space.

 

When public lands fall into the hands of developers there's sod all chance of the lands becoming public again in your lifetime.

 

Geocaching taught me the lesson of Caroline Livermore and Angel Island (with a nod to WalruZ.)

Edited February 9, 2010 by DragonsWest

[+Renegade Knight]

...The property owners adjacent to the beach managed to find some reason to list the beach as a "protected" area so people couldn't go there but then the property owners listed themselves as the caretakers of the protected areas. ...

 

With just as much legality as the no trespassing signs.

[+Renegade Knight]

...When public lands fall into the hands of developers there's sod all chance of the lands becoming public again in your lifetime....

 

Developers have a habit of fencing off/cutting off/closing trails that have been used for generations. One of the purposes of the adverse posession laws is so that they can't do that kind of thing so that the public trail can remain public. However someone has to take the case to court for a judge to rule on it. Without that step (and it takes money) the developer "wins" which of course means we all lose, including the developer who may not even be aware they just cut things off.

[+Renegade Knight]

It is my understanding that the laws concerning the public right of way on a stream bed have to do with the old laws of navigable waterways. There are exceptions, but in general you should be able to walk the stream bed, up to the normal high water mark.

You can do that only if the stream has been determined to be navigable. Johnson Creek is not navigable -- it's not big enough to support river traffic. The relevant Coast Guard report is here.

 

The Army Corps of Engineers uses a similar approach regarding the High Water Line and Waters of the US.

 

http://www.epa.gov/wetlands/guidance/CWAwaters.html

 

The ACOE has jourisdiction over waters of the US. The EPA puts their fingers into how clean those waters should be. Sportsmen so long as they stick to natural waters are normally good to the normal high water line. Waters of the US is a different concept than navigable. Though where you have both maybe the public gets an even more enforcable right of use.

[Andronicus]

A while back I had a fight with a lady at a beach. She claimed it was a private beach, and I said "No, up to the high water mark (the end of the sand, how else did it get there? And I have seen the water, more than once, higher than the sand at that beach.) was public lands." She said she was special. I guess I should have tolder her to shove off unless she could show me the property title that said otherwise. Since it was a newish condo development, I am quite sure that the title would not be old enough to include the exeption.

 

We have had so many people in Oregon claim that the beach was their property but it's not. I don't even think there are any "old" properties that allow the beach to be owned.

People used to put up signs stating the beach was private but the government stepped in. What happened after that? The property owners adjacent to the beach managed to find some reason to list the beach as a "protected" area so people couldn't go there but then the property owners listed themselves as the caretakers of the protected areas.

 

Imagine how I, the public, felt when one day I wasn't allowed to fly my kites where I had always flown them before.

 

People can be VERY selfish and arrogant with their selfishness.

 

Maybe you could apply to the EPA or whoever to have yourself declaired the caretaker, and then ban the residencse from entering (because they will damage the natural ecosystem with their sun screen). You may be able to convince the authorities of misconduct by getting pics of the "caretaker" sunbathing with her (his) friends. That is if you care enough. It may be worth it just out of pricipal.

 

Edited for spelling

Edited February 10, 2010 by Andronicus

[+bittsen]

A while back I had a fight with a lady at a beach. She claimed it was a private beach, and I said "No, up to the high water mark (the end of the sand, how else did it get there? And I have seen the water, more than once, higher than the sand at that beach.) was public lands." She said she was special. I guess I should have tolder her to shove off unless she could show me the property title that said otherwise. Since it was a newish condo development, I am quite sure that the title would not be old enough to include the exeption.

 

We have had so many people in Oregon claim that the beach was their property but it's not. I don't even think there are any "old" properties that allow the beach to be owned.

People used to put up signs stating the beach was private but the government stepped in. What happened after that? The property owners adjacent to the beach managed to find some reason to list the beach as a "protected" area so people couldn't go there but then the property owners listed themselves as the caretakers of the protected areas.

 

Imagine how I, the public, felt when one day I wasn't allowed to fly my kites where I had always flown them before.

 

People can be VERY selfish and arrogant with their selfishness.

 

Maybe you could apply to the EPA or however to have yourself declaired the caretaker, and then ban the residencse from entering (because they will damage the natural ecosystem with their sun screen). You may be able to convince the authorities of misconduct by getting pics of the "caretaker" sunbathing with her (his) friends. That is if you care enough. It may be worth it just out of pricipal.

 

If I lived closer that would be a possibility. All I did was write to the chanber of commerce and explain why I would never spend a single tourism dollar in their town. (and, I have not since that day 15 years ago)

[+patned]

I though the best part of this whole thread was post #14. The cop said it should have been placed under the bridge. Would he have automatically forwarded that info to the bomb squad?

[+DragonsWest]

I though the best part of this whole thread was post #14. The cop said it should have been placed under the bridge. Would he have automatically forwarded that info to the bomb squad?

 

If not him then the neighbors might have.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Lets back up a bit.

I was NOT on the trail that was (possibly) closed after hours. I was on a PUBLIC road. The neighbors got their panties in a wad because I was NEAR their property while on a public road.

No... neighbors "got their panties in a wad" because there had been a series of break-ins in the neighborhood and they saw somebody lurking around in the dark near their homes. I would probably be calling the cops, too, if not loading my weapon.

I don't care what you explained to me about something that you claim is called "geo-whatsing" or what is public property. They felt at risk and that trumps public property.

 

I thought you were a pacifist??

Notice I never said what that weapon was.

 

 

Careful. This is a family forum. We don't talk about that kind of weapon here.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Imagine how I, the public, felt when one day I wasn't allowed to fly my kites where I had always flown them before.

 

Let it go, bittsen, just let it go.

[knowschad]

Imagine how I, the public, felt when one day I wasn't allowed to fly my kites where I had always flown them before.

Let it go, bittsen, just let it go.

That does explain a lot, doesn't it?

[+DragonsWest]

Next time wear an orange vest and hard hat or carry a trash back with you and do some CITO to throw them off your trail.

[+Flintstone5611]

Why do people have to be so nosey.

 

Maybe nosey isn't the right word, maybe it is.

 

Last night some nosey neighbors called the police on me AFTER I had talked to them and explained why I was there, on public property, looking for a cache. It wouldn't bother me if the public property was next to theirs but it was on a road that led to their property. Their property (according to the maps) is about 300 feet away.

 

Today they signed up for an account to log 2 finds on the cache and post a note that misquoted me.

 

The CO disabled the cache. The CO is new and this is a pretty big deterrent for someone new to the hobby.

 

Why do people feel the need to be so nosy and controlling?

 

Which cache is it? I don't see it on your profile.

[+Flintstone5611]

Which cache is it? I don't see it on your profile.

Nevermind, I got it now!

[GOF and Bacall]

Next time wear an orange vest and hard hat or carry a trash back with you and do some CITO to throw them off your trail.

 

Don't forget the nice block numbers on the back.

[+bittsen]

 

Imagine how I, the public, felt when one day I wasn't allowed to fly my kites where I had always flown them before.

 

Let it go, bittsen, just let it go.

 

Imagine how you would feel if one day they closed off your favorite section of water to paddle on... All because some nearby resident wanted that section of water for themselves.