Bruce Trail cache removals

[+thebruce0]

I received notification of a cache disabled along the Bruce Trail this morning, which piqued my curiosity as the log said they were asked "by the Bruce trail" to remove all their caches along the trail.

 

Then caught an informative tweet from torontogeocaching.com which sheds a little more light on the situation

 

http://www.torontogeocaching.com/2011/11/08/bruce-trail-conservacy-banning-geocaches/

 

In short, there's no confirmation this is an official move from the Bruce Trail conservacy, and appears to be localized to the Orangeville/Hockley Valley area. Hopefully the trail is will remain geocaching friendly

[+t4e]

i don't think it has anything to do with Bruce Trail conservacy, Hockley Valley is a Nature Reserve

[+northernpenguin]

i don't think it has anything to do with Bruce Trail conservacy, Hockley Valley is a Nature Reserve

 

That's just one of the caches in question. I already mentioned that point in the TAG article.

So far, from what I have learned from sources I can't always quote.

 

I am not a reviewer, so take this with an extra large grain of sea salt.

Most of this comes from discussions with other cachers this morning:

 

- The caches have been archived, even caches off the Bruce Trail as the CO simply doesn't want to keep them going

- This is restricted to the Caledon BTC

- The Land Owner Relations person for the Caledon BTC has contacted specific persons in the past

- Apparently there was a BT reroute due to cachers leaving the trail, and the landowner pulling permission for the trail to cross their property. I don't know the specific property/reroute.

- The Caledon BTC holds a geocaching seminar at their annual Bruce Trail Day

- No official "geocaching" policy is in place at the moment for the Bruce Trail Conservacy or the Caledon BTC. However, the Bruce Trail usage policy encourages trail users to stay on the trail

- From previous experience with other trail system "ban" attempts: The landowner overrules the Bruce Trail Conservacy, and the Trail Association cannot ban caches on portions of the trail they do not own. Won't stop them from asking, but Groundspeak isn't going to bother much with people who try to block caches on land they do not own.

 

And lastly, people please don't overreact. This is something to keep on the radar, and not much more. If you haven't been contacted by anyone about your caches, there's no need to react at all. If you HAVE been contacted, verify the authenticity of the claim by responding to a @brucetrail.org email address, or phone the contact person for your local club. It would be a REAL good idea to run any cease-and-desist requests by your local volunteer reviewer so they can both validate the land owner, and ensure that other caches/lands that fall under that landowner's domain are also addressed so all parties can keep on in a positive way.

 

If you are planning to hide a cache along the Caledon portion of the Bruce Trail, double-check you have permission.

[+t4e]

i find it very strange that only one person has been contacted, at least is what it looks like since all the other caches in the same area have no notes on them

Edited November 8, 2011 by t4e

[+northernpenguin]

i find it very strange that only one person has been contacted, at least is what it looks like since all the other caches in the same area have no notes on them

 

I don't have a complete list, but I do know that more than one cacher was contacted. The CO this post refers to took the brunt of it though.

[+Dr. House]

I'd be interested to know whether any of the CO's (or anyone, really) affected has actually contacted the Caledon Bruce Trail folks to ask for a statement or some more details? As it stands at this point, we have tons of speculation and no firm answers from anyone.

[+northernpenguin]

 

I am going to speculate the BT Reroute was this one - http://brucetrail.org/trail_changes/59 where the Hockleycrest section of the trail was closed at the landowner's request in June. This is the only reroute I have seen in the immediate area of the mass archivals - which extend far beyond this parcel of land.

 

The re-route does appear to be reversed now as of Oct 21 (perhaps due to the removal of the geocaches?).

 

 

Rovers3 have pulled their caches from that section of trail as well now.

[+northernpenguin]

I'd be interested to know whether any of the CO's (or anyone, really) affected has actually contacted the Caledon Bruce Trail folks to ask for a statement or some more details? As it stands at this point, we have tons of speculation and no firm answers from anyone.

 

Putting on my OGA cap for a moment, we're opening a dialog with the Caledon BTC so we can have better answers and better landowner relations going forward.

That ball's already in motion.

[+Dr. House]

I'd be interested to know whether any of the CO's (or anyone, really) affected has actually contacted the Caledon Bruce Trail folks to ask for a statement or some more details? As it stands at this point, we have tons of speculation and no firm answers from anyone.

 

Putting on my OGA cap for a moment, we're opening a dialog with the Caledon BTC so we can have better answers and better landowner relations going forward.

That ball's already in motion.

 

Sounds good. I'm interested in hearing the nuts & bolts of that conversation.

[+CacheDrone]

For what it's worth, as reviewers we must take reports from land owners seriously and act on them immediately. Our policy is, as has always been, to archive immediately and if the situation can be resolved then we unarchive the listing.

 

The "Bruce Trail Conservancy" is in some respects a land owner because they do own property and pay taxes on said property. On the other hand, they often instead secure permission for public use for privately owned land that remains owned by individuals and other groups.

 

When the BTC is the actual property owner then as reviewers we would automatically archive the listing and suggest the Cache Owner resolve the situation. When the BTC is not the actual owner, we would have to advise them that they do not have the authority to make any requests in relation to the status of a geocache.

 

If we are in doubt as to the ownership of said property, it would be best to let the reviewers work with the person raising the issue. Even if the BTC doesn't actually own the property they obviously have much sway with the property owners and a collaborative solution that benefits everyone is certainly better than an argument that makes everyone lose.

 

Many other BTA's have established geocaches of their own, they are all obviously aware of geocaching and this hopefully is just an isolated situation. But it might be a great time to extend an invitation for a meeting, again so that everyone can be on the same page and working mutually to keep everyone's game plan in mind.

 

CD

[+CanadaKate]

Putting on my OGA cap for a moment, we're opening a dialog with the Caledon BTC so we can have better answers and better landowner relations going forward.

That ball's already in motion.

 

If it's helpful at any point for people like me who have been BTC members for decades to write a letter or send an email about how geocaching enriches/is consistent with/ my BTC experience, I'd be happy to do so.

[+TheCarterFamily]

Who would have thought my caches would have drawn so much attention. In any case here's what's happened so far.

 

First, being tired of the politics of being a Cache Owner and the fact I can't get out to maintain these caches pro-actively as lead to the response. I've actually been waiting for something to go wrong with these cache (wet logs or go missing) to pull them.

 

Here's the story, I got an email from The BT Land Co-ordinator saying "This cache is on private property, please remove". -- only really figured that out by matching the e-mail to the BT site, author never actually said who they were -- That's all I got, no indication on which cache(s). So asked. The response I got was they didn't have the names but it was the caches on the bruce trail. -- They weren't sure about the ones in the parks yet or not -- On that I just disabled them all. The only three I could find that might be on what might be private property all had the "I'm not liable approval" That is a letter saying they are not going to say OK to the cache, but they will not stop me from placing one either.

 

After disabling all the caches where I have such approval (which includes the Town of Orangeville and Town of Mono), and any on the BT... I got a response (like a day later)

 

The only two caches that they had a problem with were the Stump City (on the Temple grounds) and Monster in the Dark (resort grounds). These were definitely the "not liable approval", one was verbal on the phone.

 

My speculation since it doesn't appear the land owner asked for the removal (no confirmation on that, MapGirl hasn't respond yet.) is that the BT is in panic mode. Their just blanketing any cache on BT on private land.

 

So my note in the cache was based on saying "this cache is on private property, please remove" and and e-mail saying they are on the bruce trail (pretty much guess which ones they are)... So in my case it was easier to pull the caches then deal with the constant politics.

 

There are others getting the same notifications so it's not just me.

 

A side note... any trail that's labelled "Stay on Trail" I have the caches within arms reach or where there is already a blazed trail. The only exception was when there was a fence on either side of the trail pretty much telling you where the owner wants you to stay. If there was no "Stay on Trail" sign then I'd put it where it makes sense. My dead Bruce Trail Project was putting the caches in that way. Actually my elbow cache was actually on the trail people would step over/around the object it was hidden in.

[+TheCarterFamily]

Another update on this... The Stump City (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=c6e08c96-a0b6-4871-bf56-1f2c87aaca37) cache area. According to the BT co-ordinator they are complaining they have problems with trespassers. Yet there's no signs any where, except the huge sign on their front gate saying "Visitors Welcome"

 

I think if they took that sign down they might have better luck controlling "trespassers".

[+northernpenguin]

Another update on this... The Stump City (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=c6e08c96-a0b6-4871-bf56-1f2c87aaca37) cache area. According to the BT co-ordinator they are complaining they have problems with trespassers. Yet there's no signs any where, except the huge sign on their front gate saying "Visitors Welcome"

 

I think if they took that sign down they might have better luck controlling "trespassers".

 

The big question is, is there any of the "PRIVATE LAND: STAY ON TRAIL" signs at the trailheads in the area as well.

 

--

 

There was also a notice in today's Toronto Bruce Trail Club e-Notes that suggests the property owners are also pulling their land because of people walking in the middle of the roads:

 

"TO all hiker leaders, coordinators and directors:

 

I have been asked by our Landowner Relations director to ask hike leaders to remind their hikers to not meander all over the country roads. She has been in contact with several landowners recently while attempting to find an alternative to a piece of trail being lost in the Hockley area. More than one landowner mentioned their concern about large groups of hikers spreading out across the road. This is not only discourteous, it can be very dangerous. As well, it discourages local acceptance of the trail and hikers.

 

The following reminder has been posted in the Caledon newsletter. Please repeat this to your hikers when doing any road walking."

 

There may be more at play here than just geocachers.

[+t4e]

 

There was also a notice in today's Toronto Bruce Trail Club e-Notes that suggests the property owners are also pulling their land because of people walking in the middle of the roads:

 

"TO all hiker leaders, coordinators and directors:

 

I have been asked by our Landowner Relations director to ask hike leaders to remind their hikers to not meander all over the country roads. She has been in contact with several landowners recently while attempting to find an alternative to a piece of trail being lost in the Hockley area. More than one landowner mentioned their concern about large groups of hikers spreading out across the road. This is not only discourteous, it can be very dangerous. As well, it discourages local acceptance of the trail and hikers.

 

The following reminder has been posted in the Caledon newsletter. Please repeat this to your hikers when doing any road walking."

 

There may be more at play here than just geocachers.

 

do this people own the road too?

[+TheCarterFamily]

There was also a notice in today's Toronto Bruce Trail Club e-Notes that suggests the property owners are also pulling their land because of people walking in the middle of the roads:

 

"TO all hiker leaders, coordinators and directors:

 

I have been asked by our Landowner Relations director to ask hike leaders to remind their hikers to not meander all over the country roads. She has been in contact with several landowners recently while attempting to find an alternative to a piece of trail being lost in the Hockley area. More than one landowner mentioned their concern about large groups of hikers spreading out across the road. This is not only discourteous, it can be very dangerous. As well, it discourages local acceptance of the trail and hikers.

 

The following reminder has been posted in the Caledon newsletter. Please repeat this to your hikers when doing any road walking."

 

There may be more at play here than just geocachers.

 

do this people own the road too?

 

As I said I think the BT group is just in panic mode. If they had a trail through my land and I said I wanted a brand new paved drive way or I was going to deny access... I'd have a gold plated drive way by morning.

 

Probably good idea we pull caches out of such hot zones anyways... Best thing would be to get the land owners into geocaching so they place their own caches on their own land

[7rxc]

snip%<

 

There was also a notice in today's Toronto Bruce Trail Club e-Notes that suggests the property owners are also pulling their land because of people walking in the middle of the roads:

 

"TO all hiker leaders, coordinators and directors:

I have been asked by our Landowner Relations director to ask hike leaders to remind their hikers to not meander all over the country roads. She has been in contact with several landowners recently while attempting to find an alternative to a piece of trail being lost in the Hockley area. More than one landowner mentioned their concern about large groups of hikers spreading out across the road. This is not only discourteous, it can be very dangerous. As well, it discourages local acceptance of the trail and hikers.

 

The following reminder has been posted in the Caledon newsletter. Please repeat this to your hikers when doing any road walking."

 

There may be more at play here than just geocachers.

 

There is that to consider, especially during fall when the leaves are peaking in colour. They tend to get all sorts of groups out leaf watching, that would never normally be seen in the countryside. Also good to note that the Highway Traffic Act is quite clear about the use of roadways by pedestrians... walking single file along the left edge, facing oncoming traffic, has been the rule for years.

I'd have to go search for the exact wording, but I doubt it has changed much since I left Ontario. Many forget their legal obligations to do so when there is NO sidewalk provided. I think that quite a few figure if you aren't driving a car or truck you can do anything on a road with impunity. Ontario was fairly even handed. The Rules of the Road included all users, all the time.

 

As for more at play... well BTA members are still likely the minority users of the BT today same as up to 95 which was my time.

Tourists and local non BTA members were always the majority group and not always well mannered. Youth groups brought up from the city without education or supervision always seemed to be the most offensive ones I remember. Walk anywhere, leave behind all their trash as well. Just like at home.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Dr. House]

I'd be interested to know whether any of the CO's (or anyone, really) affected has actually contacted the Caledon Bruce Trail folks to ask for a statement or some more details? As it stands at this point, we have tons of speculation and no firm answers from anyone.

 

Putting on my OGA cap for a moment, we're opening a dialog with the Caledon BTC so we can have better answers and better landowner relations going forward.

That ball's already in motion.

 

Sounds good. I'm interested in hearing the nuts & bolts of that conversation.

 

I realize there's only been a short time since this happened so take this with a grain of salt, but I'm curious if the dialogue between OGA and Caledon BTC has occurred and whether there's an update on this topic?

[+northernpenguin]

The discussion has opened, but we are working out schedules to bring everyone together in the same room.