Need some words of wisdom

[+Sol seaker]

Okay. Lets see, there's a lot here already.

 

Knowschad: it looks like both the cache owner and the landowner did something illegal. But one was on purpose, one was on accident.

 

Mr. Benchmark: It doesn't matter what the local laws are. It's still illegal to hit someone. It's called "assault and battery." You can go to jail for it.

 

Re: the N/A vs leave the cache: since there are a lot of caches in that area it's a tough question. At least a note should be written on every one of those cache pages saying not to park in that area, that it is dangerous.

If I were caching in that area I would definitely want to know about such severe problems with the neighbors.

 

Chris and Annie

Actually I have had something similar happen to me years before I ever heard of caching. I went hiking in a park I had never been to. when I got back to my car it was blocked in by the land owners tractor.

He came out yelling and screaming at me.

I let him yell a little to get it out of his system, and then I apologized profusely. I explained I had never been there and I didn't know where to park, then apologized further. Then I asked him if he could tell me the right place to park. I was incredibly nice and polite to him.

That seemed to stop him in his tracks. I don't think he expected me to be so nice after he was yelling.

He got out a pen and paper and drew me a map and then was apologetic himself about yelling. I continued being really polite to him and he seemed to get a little embarrassed about his behavior. He became very nice to me and we ended up talking for a while.

 

If I had of been geocaching then I would have left notes on the cache pages so others knew that it wasn't okay to park there.

They really should have signs up if it's a constant problem for them.

If it ever happens again just be as nice as you can. perhaps try keeping your car between him and yourself.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

NA the cache before there is another problem and somebody else gets hurt.

Why? The cache page contains parking coordinates that, if used, will not take you onto private property. There are a couple of tweaks that could be made to the cache listing, but certainly nothing that would warrant archival.

 

I haven't looked at the cache page but even it does contain coordinates the OP managed to miss them, and as a result got assaulted. Although it's not recommended some geocachers don't look at every listing before going out to seek a cache. Let's put this into perspective. Archiving the cache would reduce the number of caches in the area by one. Perhaps it might have provided a nice hike and an interesting hide but if it's in a nice area there are probably other caches nearby that would provide a similar experience. Not archiving the cache has the potential of someone else unknowingly crossing over the property of someone that has already physically assaulted someone. Is being able to find that cache (or any cache) worth the risk?

[cezanne]

No signs and no fence. I thought that I might have just not seen a sign but I checked on my way out.

 

Yeah, that is a bad situation - a defensive property owner who doesn't put out appropriate signage. So sorry this happened to you - glad it wasn't worse.

 

Just a general note of caution (as this forum is a world wide one): I know many countries and regions in the world where it is not necessary at all to put out a fence or signs to make it illegal to park on private property. Actually, there typically most areas at the edge of a road where there are no parking lot signs are not indented for unauthorized parking. Quite often cache descriptions suggest to park at a location where parking is possible, but still not legally allowed. The difference just comes in how the owners of the property where cachers are parking react if they encounter unauthorized parking. Some do not even not it (large areas owned by them), some do not care that much (if they do not suffer from the effects of the unauthorized parking) and others get very angry up to aggressive.

 

Archiving caches on the basis of cachers parking at locations where they are not supposed to park might be appropriate in special cases, but certainly not in the general case. There are even lots of caches where one is not supposed to come even near the cache area by car as there are no legal parking lots in the whole area, but still cachers decide to go there and are also not willing to study cache descriptions in advance. I will never ever hide a traditional cache as these are suffering from this kind of behaviour the most. One could write whatever warnings and hints in the cache description, there will be still cachers who ignore all what has been written. For example, this cache had to be archived due to misbehaving cachers

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=58ce62bc-c6a9-4cca-9564-630660beeff1

who ignored all the details provided in the cache description. I think that the attitude "traditional cache: Oh well, all what we need are the coordinates" is behind many problems with property owners and local residents.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited March 9, 2012 by cezanne

[+Totem Clan]

NA the cache before there is another problem and somebody else gets hurt.

Why? The cache page contains parking coordinates that, if used, will not take you onto private property. There are a couple of tweaks that could be made to the cache listing, but certainly nothing that would warrant archival.

 

I haven't looked at the cache page but even it does contain coordinates the OP managed to miss them, and as a result got assaulted. Although it's not recommended some geocachers don't look at every listing before going out to seek a cache. Let's put this into perspective. Archiving the cache would reduce the number of caches in the area by one. Perhaps it might have provided a nice hike and an interesting hide but if it's in a nice area there are probably other caches nearby that would provide a similar experience. Not archiving the cache has the potential of someone else unknowingly crossing over the property of someone that has already physically assaulted someone. Is being able to find that cache (or any cache) worth the risk?

If the cache were archived and the site is a good one, there will be another cache there or close to there very soon. That cache will not only have no record of this occurance, but it will atract even more cachers as all the previous finders will return. That could lead to more problems than if nothing was done.

 

At most post a note on the cache page just to give people a heads up and go on caching.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Knowschad: it looks like both the cache owner and the landowner did something illegal. But one was on purpose, one was on accident.

What did the cache owner do that was illegal?

[majormajor42]

My 2 cents. An option to better inform future cachers about access if it is not archived, in addition to parking coords, the DNF comments (there was something similar last June), and more adamant warnings in the cache description...Make additions to the OSM map in this area. Like I say, only my 2 cent suggestion. I would add the parking coords to the map myself but not being from the area, and like others have said above, only a local can know for sure if that is in fact a legal place to park. Then, once that is done, some of the trails can be added in this area to the map. The description says that there is a footpath leading by the cache. Does it lead to/from the proper "parking" spot? Ideally, the footpath on the map would extend past the cache and not lead right to it.

 

OSM can be a useful tool, especially for caches where bushwacking straight to the cache is not the most efficient path, or maybe even a dangerous path. In some cases a CO might want discovering the best path to a cache to be part of the challenge but in cases like these, have trails on a map to follow might be helpful/prudent.

 

I'm hoping GC adds OSM to the mobile apps (without necessarily taking any other maps away). Some other geo apps have them. Good for those caching on the fly.

 

Of course some people out there will only be armed with a basic GPS and coords. People played the game like that for years (for better or worse).

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I may be misreading something, but it appears that the CO and the angry neighbor live on the same street. It seems like the CO is featured in photos on the cache that Chris did right before the one that lead to the altercation - the description implies it is at his house and the map shows them on the same street as the angry guy.

 

Perhaps there is some long running dispute between the CO and the neighbor? That would explain a lot.

 

Chris, have you contacted the CO about what happened? If he lives in the neighborhood he may be able to explain what happened or give you some background. It is definitely worth contacting him in any case.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

By the way, why I don't just suggest hitting NA immediately, before what happened is better understood:

1. This isn't an urban park n grab - this thing is found about once a month. There is some time to figure out what to do.

2. The cache appears to be not on private property, and is probably .2-.3 miles from angry guy's house.

3. There appears to be a legal approach not near angry guy's house.

4. It seems possible to me that the cache chris sought last isn't the main problem, It may be the other one down the block that really has angry guy annoyed. In a remote area, many would take offense at something that brings strangers into their neighborhood.

 

It may be that archiving one or more caches is the right answer here - I just wouldn't rush to judgement. I would hope the CO would look at the situation and take appropriate action, whatever that turns out to be. A stronger warning on the cache may also do the trick.

[+StarBrand]

There was a similar incident near here with a new-ish cacher going after a rural cache. He apparently took the wrong road across somebody's property.

 

I somewhat fault the cache owner because he the listing page simply encouraged seekers to study Google Maps and plan a route. Those maps show a road from the East and a road from the West. When I found the cache, I approached the road from the west - it "seemed" like private property so I circled around to the approach from the east and it was the correct road. I think this other cacher tried from the west end. Bad deal. Read about it - http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=e28f0003-6ba4-4915-82ed-93c6ee0547da

[+geodarts]

ah, figured out the cache. You made mention of not accessing very Bluebird Lane to avoid this guy. Looking at Google Maps, that sure would be the most logical way of doing it. CO gave parking coords to the SE so he is not suggesting coming from the north or something. Seems like a tough one to figure out how to access from a distance without going on Bluebird Lane, but what do I know, Google Maps can only do so much.

 

When I look at the map around GC1812D, I see a rural road (Bluebird Lane) with a fair number of houses and private property that appears to block the forest service land.. Perhaps the area looks more open from the road, but if I were planning to find this cache and looked at the map, I would not think that Bluebird Lane offered an access.

 

If I am using a gpsr to route me to a cache, I sometimes end up on similar roads - unless there is a clearly marked easement I figure that there must be another way in and read the cache description before parking at the closest possible place.and cutting across someone's land.

 

Still, the problem seems compounded because there appears to be lot of history here between the CO and the property owner. If I placed a cache that ended up bothering the neighbors, I would probably remove it out of common courtesy. Just because a cache can be placed on public land does not mean that it should. But if I were the property owner that had finally grown tired of people coming down my street I would post my property - a state agency (the South Dakota Legislative Research Council) is of the opinion that the general trespassing law is relatively new and is rather relaxed, implying that the public can enter private property unless the owner has taken steps to keep intruders out. Then again, if I was aware that they were coming for a cache, I would track down a "a 5 gal. bucket" that "is not hidden" and take care of the problem myself before assaulting someone who strayed across my land.

 

There are definitely a lot of angry property owners out there. After running into a couple of them, I tend to be careful in areas such as this. At least this guy was not armed. I am glad the story did not end up with even a worse ending than it did.

Edited March 9, 2012 by geodarts

[+jellis]

I'm Ok, a little shook up. I appreciate all the kind and supportive words. When the guy was talking to the police it sounded like he knew the CO. He said he was going to talk to his neighbor about removing the cache. He also said that he has had other problems with cachers. The problem I see is that there is a entrance as well as public property that leads into the forest at this spot. I like'n it to parking on the street and crossing someones lawn to get to the sidewalk. You know the small piece of grass between the street and the sidewalk. It was a little bigger then that space. I said 75ft before but I'm guessing it was more like 30 feet.

Glad you will be ok.

Though the nearby landowner was upset what he did was uncalled for. If the CO just put coords to entrance as a trailhead no one else would make the mistake unless they think a shortcut is better and it happens to them too. No need to archive if it has been around that long unless the CO thinks the Landowner had enough of it. It's all the CO decision.

I know some will think this is the reverse of what I wrote in my post. It is not. This one had an alternate way in that would not involve the nearby landowner seeing the cachers. The one I mention the landowner sees the cachers in plain sight of their property. Just to clarify.

Edited March 9, 2012 by jellis

[+Sol seaker]

Knowschad: it looks like both the cache owner and the landowner did something illegal. But one was on purpose, one was on accident.

What did the cache owner do that was illegal?

 

I'm sorry, I meant the cache searcher (finder).

My brain really wasn't working yesterday.

(but is it ever??)

 

I meant that the searcher parked illegally, and the landowner punched the cacher. Those are both illegal.

No, the cache owner did nothing illegal (that I know of anyway )

[+Sol seaker]

ah, figured out the cache. You made mention of not accessing very Bluebird Lane to avoid this guy. Looking at Google Maps, that sure would be the most logical way of doing it. CO gave parking coords to the SE so he is not suggesting coming from the north or something. Seems like a tough one to figure out how to access from a distance without going on Bluebird Lane, but what do I know, Google Maps can only do so much.

 

When I look at the map around GC1812D,

 

Thanks for finally posting that.

 

It's good to know what we're talking about.

 

It looks like there are a ton of caches by that cache owner in the area. He's almost made a power trail in there. It would certainly draw me there as a cacher. He's got some nice easy caches and some wooded caches with easy and difficult caches. Exactly the type of area I'd love to cache in.

 

So because this could be a big draw, it would be really good to make clear on the cache page that there is neighbor trouble here and that parking coords listed aren't optional, they're mandatory.

 

Has anyone let this guy know there's a thread about his cache/s??

[knowschad]

Trespassing does not justify that.

 

A lot depends on local law - the laws on this vary from place to place.

 

It's possible that Chris didn't trespass at all - there are often situations like this where some of the property is controlled by someone other than the land owner. For example, in my neck of the woods, you may think you own a lake front lot. (You do.) But you DO NOT own the last 30-40 feet down to the water - no, the Army Core of Engineers owns that land, and if you want to so much as cut a blade of grass on it, you'd best have a permit. Not everyone who owns such land is especially happy to have people walk across it though - legal though it is.

 

Without knowing the local laws and the actual specifc details of the location, it's impossible to know what actually happened. We know the home owner went nuts on poor Chris near an apparently public entrance to a forest - that's all we really know.

 

I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find any place that considers it trespassing the first time you enter non-posted land and have not been asked at least one time to leave that property. Otherwise, you could assult any Girl Scout that comes up and tries to sell you cookies. You have to yell 'GET OFF MY GRASS!" at least once, and wait for her try to come back before you can use force against her.

[Trinity's Crew]

Ok, per the title of this thread, "Need some words of wisdom". I'm assuming the CO hasn't altered his cache page since Chris had his bad experience.

 

So here are my words of wisdom.

 

1. Read the cache page. There is often a lot of good, important information there.

2. Press charges when someone assaults you.

3. If you're looking for the closest approach to a cache in the woods and you're in a neighborhood, you might want to take another look at the cache page and the (HORRID) maps to determine whether there is an alternate approach.

4. If you aren't comfortable attempting a cache for any reason, skip it. Maybe you feel too exposed. Maybe you feel it's beyond your capabilities. Maybe you're not sure how to approach it. Whatever the reason, if you aren't comfortable skip it.

 

That's a little advice. Oh, and duck if you can.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find any place that considers it trespassing the first time you enter non-posted land and have not been asked at least one time to leave that property. Otherwise, you could assult any Girl Scout that comes up and tries to sell you cookies. You have to yell 'GET OFF MY GRASS!" at least once, and wait for her try to come back before you can use force against her.

 

In Oklahoma, farm, ranch or forestry land does not have to be posted, and you can be prosecuted for trespassing. The intent is to prevent the theft of livestock, so I'd assume they take it seriously. You have to have explicit permission to enter such land - there is no implied permission. (OT: I'm not quite sure why they think someone who's out to steal several thousand dollars in livestock is going to worry overmuch about trespassing...)

 

That's why I said "a lot depends on local law." The laws in Oklahoma are tougher than ones I've seen other places. I have no idea what the law is in South Dakota.

 

I can't imagine any place that would consider it OK to block the exit of someone trespassing who was trying to leave your property once they became aware of their trespass, and who very obviously hadn't done any harm or taken anything, much less punch them as they tried to exit!

[knowschad]

I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find any place that considers it trespassing the first time you enter non-posted land and have not been asked at least one time to leave that property. Otherwise, you could assult any Girl Scout that comes up and tries to sell you cookies. You have to yell 'GET OFF MY GRASS!" at least once, and wait for her try to come back before you can use force against her.

 

In Oklahoma, farm, ranch or forestry land does not have to be posted, and you can be prosecuted for trespassing. The intent is to prevent the theft of livestock, so I'd assume they take it seriously. You have to have explicit permission to enter such land - there is no implied permission. (OT: I'm not quite sure why they think someone who's out to steal several thousand dollars in livestock is going to worry overmuch about trespassing...)

 

That's why I said "a lot depends on local law." The laws in Oklahoma are tougher than ones I've seen other places. I have no idea what the law is in South Dakota.

 

I can't imagine any place that would consider it OK to block the exit of someone trespassing who was trying to leave your property once they became aware of their trespass, and who very obviously hadn't done any harm or taken anything, much less punch them as they tried to exit!

Glad I said, "Hard-pressed" instead of "Impossible"!

[knowschad]

When the guy was talking to the police <snip>

So... you did stick around, and the police DID show up. What did they say about all of this?

[+cache_test_dummies]

Knowschad: it looks like both the cache owner and the landowner did something illegal. But one was on purpose, one was on accident.

What did the cache owner do that was illegal?

 

I'm sorry, I meant the cache searcher (finder).

Thanks. I thought I was missing something.

 

My brain really wasn't working yesterday.

Solar flares and a full moon can do that to a person.

[Clan Riffster]

If an aggressive animal took up residence near a cache and posed a danger to cachers it would be a no brainer.

If you find yourself in the Sunshine State, I beg you, do not hunt for any of my caches.

There are aggressive animals in residence near all, if not most of them.

These critters include venomous snakes, alligators, wild hogs, feral cattle, etc, etc.

I can assure you, they most certainly pose a very real danger to cachers.

 

The NA log type should be used on those caches which Need Archiving.

 

In this case, the cache is on public property, with legal parking posted.

What, exactly, makes this a cache that Needs Archiving?

 

By your logic, any cache could stand archiving.

For instance, let's pick a cache at random. Eenie meanie minie... let's try Gathered on BOT, by... uh... well this is awkward. It's hidden by you. But while we're here, let's use it. If I choose to park on Whittaker Ln and hike across 3 or 4 private property parcels to get there, and someone took exception to my trespassing, should your cache be archived? Assuming that your answer is going to be, "Of course my cache should be archived! Get some Common Sense!", how, exactly, should I word the NA?

 

Clan Riffster - Needs Archiving

This cache has the potential to be accessed via private property if seekers don't pay attention.

Please archive it immediately, or I will be forced to belittle you on a public forum.

 

Would that be acceptable to you?

 

Not the CO's fault, not that cache's fault.

Yup. That pretty much sums it up.

I had to edit out your bit about it not being the OPs fault.

From the cheap seats, it looks like both erred.

Though walking across a yard does not warrant a punch in the face.

 

The resident is wrong, the CO is wrong.

Did I miss something?

Assume I hide a cache on public land, with permission, and post proper parking/trailhead coordinates

You would say that I, as the cache owner, was wrong?

How's that work again?

[+nthacker66]

When I read these kinds of stories, I start to think in the back of my mind "how did this person wind up parking where they should not have or go onto private property?" That thought spins my wheels in my head and then I think back to many experiences finding "points of entry" to the cache and getting frustrated because a) not seeing a place to park looking around at the perimeter to see private property. The frustration? None of these details in the cache description.

 

So I place blame on cache owners for not taking the time to observe what is around - I see it more too often with lazy p&g's and the like. People are not asking 1) How accessible is this cache 2) What is ths surrounding land 3) Where can people park?

 

These questions need to be asked before placing caches. I think in the case of the original poster, had he/she known and had the CO listed it, this could have ben avoided.

[Trinity's Crew]

When I read these kinds of stories, I start to think in the back of my mind "how did this person wind up parking where they should not have or go onto private property?" That thought spins my wheels in my head and then I think back to many experiences finding "points of entry" to the cache and getting frustrated because a) not seeing a place to park looking around at the perimeter to see private property. The frustration? None of these details in the cache description.

 

So I place blame on cache owners for not taking the time to observe what is around - I see it more too often with lazy p&g's and the like. People are not asking 1) How accessible is this cache 2) What is ths surrounding land 3) Where can people park?

 

These questions need to be asked before placing caches. I think in the case of the original poster, had he/she known and had the CO listed it, this could have been avoided.

I'd need to recheck the cache page but I believe the CO gave instructions on where to park in this instance.

[Trinity's Crew]

GC1812D

 

Okay. I recalled that the CO suggested where to park for this cache. I just looked again and unless I am mistaken, the CO has made it much more clear about where and where not to park. Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing, but did it change?

[+The A-Team]

Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing, but did it change?

Yep, it looks like they've made some changes to the description. It's better, but a mention not to attempt from Bluebird would still be a good idea.

[+nthacker66]

Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing, but did it change?

Yep, it looks like they've made some changes to the description. It's better, but a mention not to attempt from Bluebird would still be a good idea.

 

I am not sure (because I am being lazy - resting before sitter gets here, I just tied down my yak on my car roof) but GC.com needs to be a little more detailed on their "hiding a cache" tips such as encouraging people to observe the surroundings and asking those questions I posed in my other post. Look, I am all for the more challenging cache, one with a litte risk, one that you can tell a story - but if that is the case, at least make sure in your cache description that you list the risks. In this case, the risk being "close to private property, please watch where you walk" etc. Sorry, just venting because hiders are becoming lazy and some are being deliberate in providing little detail. I don't think it does any good for the sport especially if something REALLY bad happens one day and it will ruin it for us all.

[knowschad]

Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing, but did it change?

Yep, it looks like they've made some changes to the description. It's better, but a mention not to attempt from Bluebird would still be a good idea.

 

I am not sure (because I am being lazy - resting before sitter gets here, I just tied down my yak on my car roof) but GC.com needs to be a little more detailed on their "hiding a cache" tips such as encouraging people to observe the surroundings and asking those questions I posed in my other post. Look, I am all for the more challenging cache, one with a litte risk, one that you can tell a story - but if that is the case, at least make sure in your cache description that you list the risks. In this case, the risk being "close to private property, please watch where you walk" etc. Sorry, just venting because hiders are becoming lazy and some are being deliberate in providing little detail. I don't think it does any good for the sport especially if something REALLY bad happens one day and it will ruin it for us all.

 

I'm guessing that it never even occurred to the cache owner that people might approach from this direction. Most parks (all parks?) have private property surrounding them. If you hide a cache inside of the park, it is easy to assume that finders are going to approach from inside of the park, as well. But our GPS's (particularly the auto-routing ones) will take you to the nearest spot you can drive to, and that is often in residential areas. Does that mean that the cache owner should not have hidden a cache where he did? Of course not!

[+nthacker66]

Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing, but did it change?

Yep, it looks like they've made some changes to the description. It's better, but a mention not to attempt from Bluebird would still be a good idea.

 

I am not sure (because I am being lazy - resting before sitter gets here, I just tied down my yak on my car roof) but GC.com needs to be a little more detailed on their "hiding a cache" tips such as encouraging people to observe the surroundings and asking those questions I posed in my other post. Look, I am all for the more challenging cache, one with a litte risk, one that you can tell a story - but if that is the case, at least make sure in your cache description that you list the risks. In this case, the risk being "close to private property, please watch where you walk" etc. Sorry, just venting because hiders are becoming lazy and some are being deliberate in providing little detail. I don't think it does any good for the sport especially if something REALLY bad happens one day and it will ruin it for us all.

 

I'm guessing that it never even occurred to the cache owner that people might approach from this direction. Most parks (all parks?) have private property surrounding them. If you hide a cache inside of the park, it is easy to assume that finders are going to approach from inside of the park, as well. But our GPS's (particularly the auto-routing ones) will take you to the nearest spot you can drive to, and that is often in residential areas. Does that mean that the cache owner should not have hidden a cache where he did? Of course not!

 

I am not saying the CO shouldn't have hidden the cache where he or she did. I am just saying be more aware of the surrounding areas and possible approaches - again like you said, given the auto-routing. Warn people in the cache description "do not approach from west, its private property" or in this case, this cache was very close to someones property who happened to be a jerk.

[knowschad]

Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing, but did it change?

Yep, it looks like they've made some changes to the description. It's better, but a mention not to attempt from Bluebird would still be a good idea.

 

I am not sure (because I am being lazy - resting before sitter gets here, I just tied down my yak on my car roof) but GC.com needs to be a little more detailed on their "hiding a cache" tips such as encouraging people to observe the surroundings and asking those questions I posed in my other post. Look, I am all for the more challenging cache, one with a litte risk, one that you can tell a story - but if that is the case, at least make sure in your cache description that you list the risks. In this case, the risk being "close to private property, please watch where you walk" etc. Sorry, just venting because hiders are becoming lazy and some are being deliberate in providing little detail. I don't think it does any good for the sport especially if something REALLY bad happens one day and it will ruin it for us all.

 

I'm guessing that it never even occurred to the cache owner that people might approach from this direction. Most parks (all parks?) have private property surrounding them. If you hide a cache inside of the park, it is easy to assume that finders are going to approach from inside of the park, as well. But our GPS's (particularly the auto-routing ones) will take you to the nearest spot you can drive to, and that is often in residential areas. Does that mean that the cache owner should not have hidden a cache where he did? Of course not!

 

I am not saying the CO shouldn't have hidden the cache where he or she did. I am just saying be more aware of the surrounding areas and possible approaches - again like you said, given the auto-routing. Warn people in the cache description "do not approach from west, its private property" or in this case, this cache was very close to someones property who happened to be a jerk.

 

Yeah, I was more just using your post as a springboard than anything else. I just noticed a new local cache in my New Caches folder. Opened it up to find the following apropo description:

 

Do not enter from Meadow Ln N.E. This is private property. Cache is in Blaine Open Space, and can be accessed from North Oaks West Park and East Lake Park.

Please respect the private property bordering the Open Space. Some of these land owners can be nasty about being on or near their land. Use the park way points to avoid any problems. Thanks.

[+nthacker66]

Yeah, I was more just using your post as a springboard than anything else. I just noticed a new local cache in my New Caches folder. Opened it up to find the following apropo description:

 

Do not enter from Meadow Ln N.E. This is private property. Cache is in Blaine Open Space, and can be accessed from North Oaks West Park and East Lake Park.

Please respect the private property bordering the Open Space. Some of these land owners can be nasty about being on or near their land. Use the park way points to avoid any problems. Thanks.

 

Ah gotcha bro...

[+Sky King 36]

Knowschad: it looks like both the cacher* and the landowner did something illegal. But one was on purpose, one was on accident.

This is generally not true. In MOST (not all, but most) US states, being on another's property is not illegal, this has been hashed in other threads. In most states criminal trespass does not occur unless you remain on/refuse to leave private property once notified. Further, in most states, once you enter onto private land, and are notified that you are on private land, you generally cannot be detained/prevented from leaving. In most states, if the land owner wants to detain (arrest) you, he must be prepared to justify his belief that your trespass was in the conduct of a crime, like stealing something from his property. Each state is different. Generally, what constitutes "criminal trespass" is spelled out in the state's code. However, other concepts, such as "duty to retreat" and "castle doctine" are often not spelled out in statute, but rather, are based on the interpretation of precedents set by previous cases within that state.

 

Mr. Benchmark: It doesn't matter what the local laws are. It's still illegal to hit someone. It's called "assault and battery." You can go to jail for it.

 

Definitely not true, it absolutely matters what the law says. Battery, and criminal trespass, are state violations defined by state code, and the justification of force varies tremendously from state to state. I can't imagine any legal situation where "it doesn't matter what the laws say."

 

*(btw I edited out "cache owner" and replaced it with "cacher" per your original intent.)

Edited March 13, 2012 by Sky King 36

[knowschad]

Knowschad: it looks like both the cacher* and the landowner did something illegal. But one was on purpose, one was on accident.

This is generally not true. In MOST (not all, but most) US states, being on another's property is not illegal, this has been hashed in other threads. In most states criminal trespass does not occur unless you remain on/refuse to leave private property once notified. Further, in most states, once you enter onto private land, and are notified that you are on private land, you generally cannot be detained/prevented from leaving. In most states, if the land owner wants to detain (arrest) you, he must be prepared to justify his belief that your trespass was in the conduct of a crime, like stealing something from his property. Each state is different. Generally, what constitutes "criminal trespass" is spelled out in the state's code. However, other concepts, such as "duty to retreat" and "castle doctine" are often not spelled out in statute, but rather, are based on the interpretation of precedents set by previous cases within that state.

 

 

Yup... pretty much what I was getting at in a later post.

[+Harry Dolphin]

If an aggressive animal took up residence near a cache and posed a danger to cachers it would be a no brainer.

If you find yourself in the Sunshine State, I beg you, do not hunt for any of my caches.

There are aggressive animals in residence near all, if not most of them.

These critters include venomous snakes, alligators, wild hogs, feral cattle, etc, etc.

I can assure you, they most certainly pose a very real danger to cachers.

 

Ah. I think I'll keep my black bear and rattlesnakes. You can keep your gators.

Yes. There are people who will not hunt for many of my caches because of the bear. (I mention the bear, and even tell you what their names are. Reminds me I have to replace another bear chew toy.)

[+Totem Clan]

If an aggressive animal took up residence near a cache and posed a danger to cachers it would be a no brainer.

If you find yourself in the Sunshine State, I beg you, do not hunt for any of my caches.

There are aggressive animals in residence near all, if not most of them.

These critters include venomous snakes, alligators, wild hogs, feral cattle, etc, etc.

I can assure you, they most certainly pose a very real danger to cachers.

 

Ah. I think I'll keep my black bear and rattlesnakes. You can keep your gators.

Yes. There are people who will not hunt for many of my caches because of the bear. (I mention the bear, and even tell you what their names are. Reminds me I have to replace another bear chew toy.)

Rattlesnakes, spiders, and mountain lions here. Bears, gators and snakes south and east of here. I say it just adds to the charm of the hunt.

[+J the Goat]

If an aggressive animal took up residence near a cache and posed a danger to cachers it would be a no brainer.

If you find yourself in the Sunshine State, I beg you, do not hunt for any of my caches.

There are aggressive animals in residence near all, if not most of them.

These critters include venomous snakes, alligators, wild hogs, feral cattle, etc, etc.

I can assure you, they most certainly pose a very real danger to cachers.

 

Ah. I think I'll keep my black bear and rattlesnakes. You can keep your gators.

Yes. There are people who will not hunt for many of my caches because of the bear. (I mention the bear, and even tell you what their names are. Reminds me I have to replace another bear chew toy.)

Rattlesnakes, spiders, and mountain lions here. Bears, gators and snakes south and east of here. I say it just adds to the charm of the hunt.

 

Rattlers, bears, mountain lions in this area. Closest gator is probably 2 hours away at the San Francisco zoo. Given what I've seen regarding those sneaky giant lizards, that's close enough for me :laughing: