Defenders of Nature

[Keystone]

After reading this thread I will make a point of going into the woods nearby and carving (with my chisel set) the Word "GEOCACHING" on to a very large and living tree. Some people just want to see the world burn. Photos to follow.

Defacing? No. Artistic? Yes.

Thanks for the heads-up. I have alerted the volunteer cache reviewers for your home area.

 

Special, just for you Keystone. And Art lives another day.

 

[+Don_J]

In regards to the "Tree Law"...

 

Some of the weirdest laws...start with the best of intentions...

 

Well, I think this is really over reaching. By definition, I couldn't lock my bike to a tree in a park or on the strip of land between any sidewalk and street. Was this a major problem with trees being damaged. I probably locked my first bike to a tree in a park when I was 7. I'm pretty sure that the tree is just fine 44 years later. If people are nailing Garage Sale signs to trees or hanging Christmas lights on the parkways and leaving them there through June, then write a law to address it. Hanging a bison tube is no more intrusive than hanging a Christmas ornament.

 

I have no idea what Calgary politics is like but this sounds like something that the nutcases in California would come up with.

[+SwineFlew]

I took this picture back in 2010

 

 

No, The Keystone that we guys know didnt do this.

Edited November 2, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+The_Incredibles_]

The Keystone that we guys know didnt do this.

 

...or did he?

[7rxc]

I'm thinking of sending that link along to BC's Premier. Really glad we can count on the City of Calgary's support to stop the Enbridge oil pipeline. Anyone who cares that much about mere trees should be glad to campaign to avoid destruction of whole ecosystems in the event of an Albertan engineered oil spill.

 

Wonder if any other Alberta cities have similar bylaws (rubber stamp copies of the big boys)? Be ironic if Edmonton did!

 

Anyway, I support not carving away on live trees or dead ones that are left in the public view. Appearances do count to many.

Given the number of really old carvings in trees etc. it isn't the physical harm that matters. Since we agreed to observe the guidelines when we joined, and they say 'Thou shalt not deface, damage etc.' then that is the way it is and shall be.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I'm so flattered by the discussion prompted by my post! This is the most response I've ever gotten on an online forum. Makes me almost glad we got slammed.

 

Ultimately I agree with those who don't see the carving as a serious offense to nature. To me it's a matter of imposing man's will on a life form. I don't see carving initials in a dead thing any different than going into the woods, picking up some dead sticks and making something with them. As someone above said, it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

I also believe in the need for rules and regs to keep this world safe for everyone so I will abide by the current rules of geocaching. If I get the opportunity to change them I just might try.

 

In answer to one of the other posts, the only way anyone knew there was a carving was through Facebook. I thought that was an underhanded way of coming to a conclusion. Someone should have gone out and checked it out in person.

 

I will interject my own useless opinion in here (and probably get slammed for it no matter how I word it) but the issue, as with many issues discussed here is all a matter of subjectvity - and the reviewers are probably the must subjective types I have met in any part of my life. Bless their hearts, they want to be objective, but often their own personal beliefs play roles in how the review caches - this is no exception. "Defacing Nature" - if it were a live tree, there is no doubt. But I do not see carvings of initials into dead wood any different then whittling a doll out of dead wood. So I would let it stand. Personally, I leave all nature as best as I can find it, dead or not, but I surely would not rule this as a defacement of nature if I were a reviewer.

 

In the case of dead trees/stumps/logs, Groundspeak isn't really trying to prevent you from defacing them. I could chop a tree stump into splinters and then set the splinters on fire. I could use it for shotgun target practice or I could hammer 10,000 nails into it...it isn't going to make the stump any deader.

 

What Groundspeak is trying to prevent is someone coming along, be it another geocacher or the landowner, seeing that someone carved coordinates into a dead tree and getting the idea that carving coordinates into trees (dead or alive) is allowed. The same with drilling holes, using spray paint or whittling some sort of clue onto the tree itself.

 

Groundspeak has fought hard against the perception that geocaches are buried. The last three times I've inquired about permission to place a cache (to three different land managers), they've all asked if I was going to bury the cache. That perception/stigma still exists. A zero tolerance policy by Groundspeak helps insure that landowners don't respond with "You're not going to bury your cache or carve up my trees to hide it, are you?".

[+LVDJ]

Thank you everyone for the input. I am the "wife" who is mentioned in the initial post. I was the one who posted the picture and description of the cache on a Facebook geocaching site that I "friended." I got caught up in the moment of my anniversary, and my husband's "outside the box thinking" of a gift for me. WE had no deliberate intention of breaking a "geocache" law. WE did not look at the guidelines as closely as we should have. AGAIN, we are new at this, 127 caches found, and we were excited to place our first cache, on our anniversary. Plain and simple.

 

I was extremely upset with whomever took it upon his/herself to contact the reviewer and "REPORT" me. The Facebook person didn't have the common sense to send me a quick (private) message and help me learn the process of placing a cache. I am no longer part of the Facebook geocaching group.

 

I take full responsibility for "breaking the geocache rules," however, it would have been more conducive to me and the learning process, if the mean-spirited person who tattle-tailed on me recognize it was not the adult, responsible or geocache-friendly thing to do.

 

L

[+fbingha]

I find it childish to refer to the "person" who alerted the reviewer to your tree carving as "mean-spirited" and a "tattle-tail". It seems likely that you would have been upset either way since they did nothing "mean" to you. That sentiment implies that the "tattle-tail" should have left things alone so that you could enjoy your carving in peace.

 

The adult, responsible, and geocache friendly thing to do is to not go about carving geocache clues into the environment.

Edited November 2, 2012 by fbingha

[+LVDJ]

I find it childish to refer to the "person" who alerted the reviewer to your tree carving as "mean-spirited" and a "tattle-tail". It seems likely that you would have been upset either way since they did nothing "mean" to you. That sentiment implies that the "tattle-tail" should have left things alone so that you could enjoy your carving in peace.

 

The adult, responsible, and geocache friendly thing to do is to not go about carving geocache clues into the environment.

 

fbingha: As I have stated before, I take full responsibility for my actions. I would have hoped that a experienced geocacher would have been a better mentor to me. I did not imply that the "tattle-tail" should have left things alone, on the contrary, I would have liked some further help in making things right. Thank you for your reply, and I hope you have a FABULOUS weekend, get out there an do some geocaching!

L

Edited November 2, 2012 by LVDJ

[+CanadianRockies]

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Planning-and-Operations/Tree-Management/Tree-protection-bylaws.aspx

Wow. Did anything about this law start because of caches in trees?

 

It seems like this provides an opportunity to clarify geocaching policies with the City of Calgary tree program powers-that-be. I can't imagine that it will change the game that much in the end there in Calgary, but it certainly is quite the interpretation of the bylaw to say that a geocache was "attached". It reads more to me that trees shouldn't have unauthorized Christmas lights, signs or screwed-in bird houses (and the like...).

 

Getting a clarification from the city on that one might be helpful in the way of fostering good relationships with land managers.

Calgary geocachers did indeed contact the city to clarify the intent of the Tree Protection bylaw. From these discussions, we learned that the city doesn't want people doing things that harm the city's trees.

 

A geocache that is tightly clamped onto a tree in a way that constricts future growth would be subject to removal (and a potential fine). A geocache that loosely hangs on an accessible branch is okay.

[+farrtom]

I am still a little confused about the carving in the dead tree. Did it give a clue to the cache or for that mater have anything to do with the cache?

[+CanadianRockies]

Wonder if any other Alberta cities have similar bylaws (rubber stamp copies of the big boys)?

I don't know about Alberta cities, but a couple months ago I came across Toronto's Parks bylaw. See section 608-6, in particular. A strict reading probably would forbid you from climbing a boulder, "skipping" a rock on a pond, or even walking on their beaches (since you likely would remove some sand when you left the park).

[+NeverSummer]

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Planning-and-Operations/Tree-Management/Tree-protection-bylaws.aspx

Wow. Did anything about this law start because of caches in trees?

 

It seems like this provides an opportunity to clarify geocaching policies with the City of Calgary tree program powers-that-be. I can't imagine that it will change the game that much in the end there in Calgary, but it certainly is quite the interpretation of the bylaw to say that a geocache was "attached". It reads more to me that trees shouldn't have unauthorized Christmas lights, signs or screwed-in bird houses (and the like...).

 

Getting a clarification from the city on that one might be helpful in the way of fostering good relationships with land managers.

Calgary geocachers did indeed contact the city to clarify the intent of the Tree Protection bylaw. From these discussions, we learned that the city doesn't want people doing things that harm the city's trees.

 

A geocache that is tightly clamped onto a tree in a way that constricts future growth would be subject to removal (and a potential fine). A geocache that loosely hangs on an accessible branch is okay.

So it isn't all doom and gloom. Nice to know that you can still use trees in Calgary as a spot to hide a geocache, provided you don't disturb or damage in any way. The way it was first presented here in this thread was as a complete ban of any cache, no matter what.

[+LVDJ]

I am still a little confused about the carving in the dead tree. Did it give a clue to the cache or for that mater have anything to do with the cache?

 

no, it was a silly,innocent, romantic thing to do. It wasn't a clue, on the geocache site or in the description.

[Keystone]

I was extremely upset with whomever took it upon his/herself to contact the reviewer and "REPORT" me. The Facebook person didn't have the common sense to send me a quick (private) message and help me learn the process of placing a cache. I am no longer part of the Facebook geocaching group.

 

I take full responsibility for "breaking the geocache rules," however, it would have been more conducive to me and the learning process, if the mean-spirited person who tattle-tailed on me recognize it was not the adult, responsible or geocache-friendly thing to do.

 

L

As a Facebook user, do you understand that members of a group can sign up to receive notifications when someone posts to the group's page?

 

Reviewers are allowed to be members of Facebook groups about geocaching. We are geocachers, too. So, when you made your post, any reviewer who was signed up for notifications would have received your post directly in their email.

 

Upon receiving information directly from a geocacher (your Facebook post), what's a reviewer to do? You "tattled" directly to that reviewer's email inbox when you posted about your defacement of the tree.

[+farrtom]

I am still a little confused about the carving in the dead tree. Did it give a clue to the cache or for that mater have anything to do with the cache?

 

no, it was a silly,innocent, romantic thing to do. It wasn't a clue, on the geocache site or in the description.

 

If the carving had nothing to do with the carving then I think the reviewer over reacted and should not have pulled the cache.

Does this mean you can't hide a cache in that area ever again?

What if you mentioned on facebook that you were pulled over for speeding on your way to hide the cache and the reviewer had a personal grief with people who speed, does this mean they wouldn't approve the cache?

What if the carving was a few years old, before you started caching and you chose to hide a cache near by, does this mean they wouldn't approve the cache?

 

Again, not that I necessarily approve of the carving, but reviewers are to review caches not peoples behavior.

 

I would change the wording on the cache page and re-hide and re-submit it.

[+LVDJ]

I was extremely upset with whomever took it upon his/herself to contact the reviewer and "REPORT" me. The Facebook person didn't have the common sense to send me a quick (private) message and help me learn the process of placing a cache. I am no longer part of the Facebook geocaching group.

 

I take full responsibility for "breaking the geocache rules," however, it would have been more conducive to me and the learning process, if the mean-spirited person who tattle-tailed on me recognize it was not the adult, responsible or geocache-friendly thing to do.

 

L

As a Facebook user, do you understand that members of a group can sign up to receive notifications when someone posts to the group's page?

 

Reviewers are allowed to be members of Facebook groups about geocaching. We are geocachers, too. So, when you made your post, any reviewer who was signed up for notifications would have received your post directly in their email.

 

Upon receiving information directly from a geocacher (your Facebook post), what's a reviewer to do? You "tattled" directly to that reviewer's email inbox when you posted about your defacement of the tree.

 

AGAIN: I take responsibility for doing the wrong thing, however, it would have been "nicer" if the Facebook user sent me a private message stating my mistake and I could have corrected it. As it stands now, the cache is archived/disabled. When my husband and I have a moment, we will replace it at another location sans defacement of the surrounding area.

[+LVDJ]

I am still a little confused about the carving in the dead tree. Did it give a clue to the cache or for that mater have anything to do with the cache?

 

no, it was a silly,innocent, romantic thing to do. It wasn't a clue, on the geocache site or in the description.

 

If the carving had nothing to do with the carving then I think the reviewer over reacted and should not have pulled the cache.

Does this mean you can't hide a cache in that area ever again?

What if you mentioned on facebook that you were pulled over for speeding on your way to hide the cache and the reviewer had a personal grief with people who speed, does this mean they wouldn't approve the cache?

What if the carving was a few years old, before you started caching and you chose to hide a cache near by, does this mean they wouldn't approve the cache?

 

Again, not that I necessarily approve of the carving, but reviewers are to review caches not peoples behavior.

 

 

I would change the wording on the cache page and re-hide and re-submit it.

 

 

No, we are not allowed to hide it in that area again...

Edited November 2, 2012 by LVDJ

[+NeverSummer]

I was extremely upset with whomever took it upon his/herself to contact the reviewer and "REPORT" me. The Facebook person didn't have the common sense to send me a quick (private) message and help me learn the process of placing a cache. I am no longer part of the Facebook geocaching group.

 

I take full responsibility for "breaking the geocache rules," however, it would have been more conducive to me and the learning process, if the mean-spirited person who tattle-tailed on me recognize it was not the adult, responsible or geocache-friendly thing to do.

 

L

As a Facebook user, do you understand that members of a group can sign up to receive notifications when someone posts to the group's page?

 

Reviewers are allowed to be members of Facebook groups about geocaching. We are geocachers, too. So, when you made your post, any reviewer who was signed up for notifications would have received your post directly in their email.

 

Upon receiving information directly from a geocacher (your Facebook post), what's a reviewer to do? You "tattled" directly to that reviewer's email inbox when you posted about your defacement of the tree.

 

AGAIN: I take responsibility for doing the wrong thing, however, it would have been "nicer" if the Facebook user sent me a private message stating my mistake and I could have corrected it. As it stands now, the cache is archived/disabled. When my husband and I have a moment, we will replace it at another location sans defacement of the surrounding area.

Really, that's all you can do at this point. Lessons learned all around, I hope.

 

The part that is unfortunate is that the "private," non-geocaching related carving was posted to that Geocaching facebook group. That post likely brought it to the Reviewer's attention (directly, or indirectly), and unfortunately appeared to be a carving related to the geocache.

 

I really hope that this interaction doesn't ruin your geocaching experience. I also hope that it doesn't sour you on being part of the local geocaching organization. Perhaps, in time, everything will cool down, and you and your husband can discuss this with level heads with folks in the organization. That is, if you feel like you need to for closure, etc.

[+farrtom]

I am still a little confused about the carving in the dead tree. Did it give a clue to the cache or for that mater have anything to do with the cache?

 

no, it was a silly,innocent, romantic thing to do. It wasn't a clue, on the geocache site or in the description.

 

If the carving had nothing to do with the carving then I think the reviewer over reacted and should not have pulled the cache.

Does this mean you can't hide a cache in that area ever again?

What if you mentioned on facebook that you were pulled over for speeding on your way to hide the cache and the reviewer had a personal grief with people who speed, does this mean they wouldn't approve the cache?

What if the carving was a few years old, before you started caching and you chose to hide a cache near by, does this mean they wouldn't approve the cache?

 

Again, not that I necessarily approve of the carving, but reviewers are to review caches not peoples behavior.

 

 

I would change the wording on the cache page and re-hide and re-submit it.

 

 

No, we are not allowed to hide it in that area again...

 

No other cache ever? seams a bit extreme.

[+NeverSummer]

I am still a little confused about the carving in the dead tree. Did it give a clue to the cache or for that mater have anything to do with the cache?

 

no, it was a silly,innocent, romantic thing to do. It wasn't a clue, on the geocache site or in the description.

 

If the carving had nothing to do with the carving then I think the reviewer over reacted and should not have pulled the cache.

Does this mean you can't hide a cache in that area ever again?

What if you mentioned on facebook that you were pulled over for speeding on your way to hide the cache and the reviewer had a personal grief with people who speed, does this mean they wouldn't approve the cache?

What if the carving was a few years old, before you started caching and you chose to hide a cache near by, does this mean they wouldn't approve the cache?

 

Again, not that I necessarily approve of the carving, but reviewers are to review caches not peoples behavior.

 

 

I would change the wording on the cache page and re-hide and re-submit it.

 

 

No, we are not allowed to hide it in that area again...

 

No other cache ever? seams a bit extreme.

You can always try. If it is denied, you can appeal.

[+LVDJ]

I am still a little confused about the carving in the dead tree. Did it give a clue to the cache or for that mater have anything to do with the cache?

 

no, it was a silly,innocent, romantic thing to do. It wasn't a clue, on the geocache site or in the description.

 

If the carving had nothing to do with the carving then I think the reviewer over reacted and should not have pulled the cache.

Does this mean you can't hide a cache in that area ever again?

What if you mentioned on facebook that you were pulled over for speeding on your way to hide the cache and the reviewer had a personal grief with people who speed, does this mean they wouldn't approve the cache?

What if the carving was a few years old, before you started caching and you chose to hide a cache near by, does this mean they wouldn't approve the cache?

 

Again, not that I necessarily approve of the carving, but reviewers are to review caches not peoples behavior.

 

 

I would change the wording on the cache page and re-hide and re-submit it.

 

 

No, we are not allowed to hide it in that area again...

 

No other cache ever? seams a bit extreme.

 

I believe, just in that area....we have to look for a new place, perhaps, this weekend, and re-submit.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Planning-and-Operations/Tree-Management/Tree-protection-bylaws.aspx

Wow. Did anything about this law start because of caches in trees?

 

It seems like this provides an opportunity to clarify geocaching policies with the City of Calgary tree program powers-that-be. I can't imagine that it will change the game that much in the end there in Calgary, but it certainly is quite the interpretation of the bylaw to say that a geocache was "attached". It reads more to me that trees shouldn't have unauthorized Christmas lights, signs or screwed-in bird houses (and the like...).

 

Getting a clarification from the city on that one might be helpful in the way of fostering good relationships with land managers.

 

This line in the ByLaw would seem prevent putting a cache in a tree:

 

"No person shall put any thing in the branches of a Public Tree or cause anything to be put in the branches of a Public Tree."

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Planning-and-Operations/Tree-Management/Tree-protection-bylaws.aspx

Wow. Did anything about this law start because of caches in trees?

 

It seems like this provides an opportunity to clarify geocaching policies with the City of Calgary tree program powers-that-be. I can't imagine that it will change the game that much in the end there in Calgary, but it certainly is quite the interpretation of the bylaw to say that a geocache was "attached". It reads more to me that trees shouldn't have unauthorized Christmas lights, signs or screwed-in bird houses (and the like...).

 

Getting a clarification from the city on that one might be helpful in the way of fostering good relationships with land managers.

 

This line in the ByLaw would seem prevent putting a cache in a tree:

 

"No person shall put any thing in the branches of a Public Tree or cause anything to be put in the branches of a Public Tree."

Sure would prevent caches, but I see nothing indicating it was written because of caches. We have a local cache called Shoe Tree (or something like that). It has a cache there because for some reason it became trendy to toss shoes in the branches.

[Keystone]

I was extremely upset with whomever took it upon his/herself to contact the reviewer and "REPORT" me. The Facebook person didn't have the common sense to send me a quick (private) message and help me learn the process of placing a cache. I am no longer part of the Facebook geocaching group.

 

I take full responsibility for "breaking the geocache rules," however, it would have been more conducive to me and the learning process, if the mean-spirited person who tattle-tailed on me recognize it was not the adult, responsible or geocache-friendly thing to do.

 

L

As a Facebook user, do you understand that members of a group can sign up to receive notifications when someone posts to the group's page?

 

Reviewers are allowed to be members of Facebook groups about geocaching. We are geocachers, too. So, when you made your post, any reviewer who was signed up for notifications would have received your post directly in their email.

 

Upon receiving information directly from a geocacher (your Facebook post), what's a reviewer to do? You "tattled" directly to that reviewer's email inbox when you posted about your defacement of the tree.

 

AGAIN: I take responsibility for doing the wrong thing, however, it would have been "nicer" if the Facebook user sent me a private message stating my mistake and I could have corrected it. As it stands now, the cache is archived/disabled. When my husband and I have a moment, we will replace it at another location sans defacement of the surrounding area.

You absolutely missed my point. Looking over my prior post, I think I omitted one thing you need to know. (Sorry about that.)

 

When a reviewer learns facts about a cache issue in another reviewer's territory, our normal operating protocol is for the first reviewer to contact the reviewer for the area where the cache is. So, in this example, the first reviewer (the one you keep calling a "tattle tale") received your statement in his email inbox. Following protocol, he advised the reviewer privately about the information he received. Your home area reviewer then advised you privately of the impact on your cache review. That was the right thing to do, to have the right reviewer communicate with you. "Tattling" would have occurred if either of those reviewers came here and started a forum thread called "look what LVDJ did." We don't do that.

[+NeverSummer]

[This line in the ByLaw would seem prevent putting a cache in a tree:

 

"No person shall put any thing in the branches of a Public Tree or cause anything to be put in the branches of a Public Tree."

Sure would prevent caches, but I see nothing indicating it was written because of caches. We have a local cache called Shoe Tree (or something like that). It has a cache there because for some reason it became trendy to toss shoes in the branches.

Dang. Missed that one at #17 when I read through it before. Sounds like just about everything is off limits. Must have been some amazing history of tree damage and defacement behind making this rigorous a set of bylaws. It's a pretty exhaustive list of things you can't do.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

[This line in the ByLaw would seem prevent putting a cache in a tree:

 

"No person shall put any thing in the branches of a Public Tree or cause anything to be put in the branches of a Public Tree."

Sure would prevent caches, but I see nothing indicating it was written because of caches. We have a local cache called Shoe Tree (or something like that). It has a cache there because for some reason it became trendy to toss shoes in the branches.

Dang. Missed that one at #17 when I read through it before. Sounds like just about everything is off limits. Must have been some amazing history of tree damage and defacement behind making this rigorous a set of bylaws. It's a pretty exhaustive list of things you can't do.

 

I didn't read past that line so wonder if there was something in there about naturally created holes. I've found quite a few caches in holes in tree that were the result of a branch breaking off which eventually created a hole large enough to put in a fairly large cache or holes that form in the roots. In either case it would not be putting anything in the branches but using what nature has provide in the trunk or roots.

 

I may have missed it but the ByLaws defined just about everything and don't recall a distinction between live and dead trees.

[+NeverSummer]

[This line in the ByLaw would seem prevent putting a cache in a tree:

 

"No person shall put any thing in the branches of a Public Tree or cause anything to be put in the branches of a Public Tree."

Sure would prevent caches, but I see nothing indicating it was written because of caches. We have a local cache called Shoe Tree (or something like that). It has a cache there because for some reason it became trendy to toss shoes in the branches.

Dang. Missed that one at #17 when I read through it before. Sounds like just about everything is off limits. Must have been some amazing history of tree damage and defacement behind making this rigorous a set of bylaws. It's a pretty exhaustive list of things you can't do.

 

I didn't read past that line so wonder if there was something in there about naturally created holes. I've found quite a few caches in holes in tree that were the result of a branch breaking off which eventually created a hole large enough to put in a fairly large cache or holes that form in the roots. In either case it would not be putting anything in the branches but using what nature has provide in the trunk or roots.

 

I may have missed it but the ByLaws defined just about everything and don't recall a distinction between live and dead trees.

Yeah, I read something about holes in trees somewhere...was it this bylaw...was it this thread? Where's my coffee?

[+tozainamboku]

I was extremely upset with whomever took it upon his/herself to contact the reviewer and "REPORT" me. The Facebook person didn't have the common sense to send me a quick (private) message and help me learn the process of placing a cache. I am no longer part of the Facebook geocaching group.

 

I take full responsibility for "breaking the geocache rules," however, it would have been more conducive to me and the learning process, if the mean-spirited person who tattle-tailed on me recognize it was not the adult, responsible or geocache-friendly thing to do.

 

L

As a Facebook user, do you understand that members of a group can sign up to receive notifications when someone posts to the group's page?

 

Reviewers are allowed to be members of Facebook groups about geocaching. We are geocachers, too. So, when you made your post, any reviewer who was signed up for notifications would have received your post directly in their email.

 

Upon receiving information directly from a geocacher (your Facebook post), what's a reviewer to do? You "tattled" directly to that reviewer's email inbox when you posted about your defacement of the tree.

 

AGAIN: I take responsibility for doing the wrong thing, however, it would have been "nicer" if the Facebook user sent me a private message stating my mistake and I could have corrected it. As it stands now, the cache is archived/disabled. When my husband and I have a moment, we will replace it at another location sans defacement of the surrounding area.

You absolutely missed my point. Looking over my prior post, I think I omitted one thing you need to know. (Sorry about that.)

 

When a reviewer learns facts about a cache issue in another reviewer's territory, our normal operating protocol is for the first reviewer to contact the reviewer for the area where the cache is. So, in this example, the first reviewer (the one you keep calling a "tattle tale") received your statement in his email inbox. Following protocol, he advised the reviewer privately about the information he received. Your home area reviewer then advised you privately of the impact on your cache review. That was the right thing to do, to have the right reviewer communicate with you. "Tattling" would have occurred if either of those reviewers came here and started a forum thread called "look what LVDJ did." We don't do that.

Without seeing the Facebook post I can't tell if either of these reviewers acted outside their responsibility. Did they actually determine that property was damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find? Or did the reviewers use their secret knowledge of the rationale behind the guideline to infer the guideline really means that if cachers damage or deface property near a cache the cache can be archived?

[+CanadianRockies]

Yeah, I read something about holes in trees somewhere...was it this bylaw...was it this thread? Where's my coffee?

Calgary's geocaching guidelines (not yet a bylaw) ask that geocaches not be placed in tree cavities or animal burrows. They prefer that these spaces be left for wildlife to use.

[AZcachemeister]

Carving up things is BAD!

 

Painting graffiti on stuff is BAD!

 

[+wimseyguy]

Carving up things is BAD!

 

Painting graffiti on stuff is BAD!

 

 

Doing things that put geocaching in a bad light when viewed by land managers and park rangers is BAD.

Find your own links to restrictive geocaching policies caused by reactions to our behaviors.

[+LVDJ]

I was extremely upset with whomever took it upon his/herself to contact the reviewer and "REPORT" me. The Facebook person didn't have the common sense to send me a quick (private) message and help me learn the process of placing a cache. I am no longer part of the Facebook geocaching group.

 

I take full responsibility for "breaking the geocache rules," however, it would have been more conducive to me and the learning process, if the mean-spirited person who tattle-tailed on me recognize it was not the adult, responsible or geocache-friendly thing to do.

 

L

As a Facebook user, do you understand that members of a group can sign up to receive notifications when someone posts to the group's page?

 

Reviewers are allowed to be members of Facebook groups about geocaching. We are geocachers, too. So, when you made your post, any reviewer who was signed up for notifications would have received your post directly in their email.

 

Upon receiving information directly from a geocacher (your Facebook post), what's a reviewer to do? You "tattled" directly to that reviewer's email inbox when you posted about your defacement of the tree.

 

AGAIN: I take responsibility for doing the wrong thing, however, it would have been "nicer" if the Facebook user sent me a private message stating my mistake and I could have corrected it. As it stands now, the cache is archived/disabled. When my husband and I have a moment, we will replace it at another location sans defacement of the surrounding area.

You absolutely missed my point. Looking over my prior post, I think I omitted one thing you need to know. (Sorry about that.)

 

When a reviewer learns facts about a cache issue in another reviewer's territory, our normal operating protocol is for the first reviewer to contact the reviewer for the area where the cache is. So, in this example, the first reviewer (the one you keep calling a "tattle tale") received your statement in his email inbox. Following protocol, he advised the reviewer privately about the information he received. Your home area reviewer then advised you privately of the impact on your cache review. That was the right thing to do, to have the right reviewer communicate with you. "Tattling" would have occurred if either of those reviewers came here and started a forum thread called "look what LVDJ did." We don't do that.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

It is my OPINION, that if a reviewer sees/reads something on Facebook, then it should be off limits to use that information in approving/denying the cache publication. However, I realize we live in a computer mediated society, and college admissions offices look at Facebook before accepting a student and employers use Facebook before offering a position to a potential employee. Again, I think, strictly my opinion, the fair, kind and proper thing to do in my situation was for the person who "reported me" to the reviewer could have taken a more kind and gentler approach. To be clear, I was "reported" as per what the reviewer sent to me. To look at it in a different way, if a child does something wrong, would it be better to yell, and scream and discipline the child? or would it be more conducive to point out what the child did wrong, make it a learning process, and hopefully the child will carry the lesson with them. Of course, there are different scenarios, so lets save the back and forth. Plainly, it would have been nicer and more conducive for the Facebook person to have corrected me, not to report me. End of story.I have learned my lesson, however, by the wrong approach.

[+NeverSummer]

I was extremely upset with whomever took it upon his/herself to contact the reviewer and "REPORT" me. The Facebook person didn't have the common sense to send me a quick (private) message and help me learn the process of placing a cache. I am no longer part of the Facebook geocaching group.

 

I take full responsibility for "breaking the geocache rules," however, it would have been more conducive to me and the learning process, if the mean-spirited person who tattle-tailed on me recognize it was not the adult, responsible or geocache-friendly thing to do.

 

L

As a Facebook user, do you understand that members of a group can sign up to receive notifications when someone posts to the group's page?

 

Reviewers are allowed to be members of Facebook groups about geocaching. We are geocachers, too. So, when you made your post, any reviewer who was signed up for notifications would have received your post directly in their email.

 

Upon receiving information directly from a geocacher (your Facebook post), what's a reviewer to do? You "tattled" directly to that reviewer's email inbox when you posted about your defacement of the tree.

 

AGAIN: I take responsibility for doing the wrong thing, however, it would have been "nicer" if the Facebook user sent me a private message stating my mistake and I could have corrected it. As it stands now, the cache is archived/disabled. When my husband and I have a moment, we will replace it at another location sans defacement of the surrounding area.

You absolutely missed my point. Looking over my prior post, I think I omitted one thing you need to know. (Sorry about that.)

 

When a reviewer learns facts about a cache issue in another reviewer's territory, our normal operating protocol is for the first reviewer to contact the reviewer for the area where the cache is. So, in this example, the first reviewer (the one you keep calling a "tattle tale") received your statement in his email inbox. Following protocol, he advised the reviewer privately about the information he received. Your home area reviewer then advised you privately of the impact on your cache review. That was the right thing to do, to have the right reviewer communicate with you. "Tattling" would have occurred if either of those reviewers came here and started a forum thread called "look what LVDJ did." We don't do that.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

It is my OPINION, that if a reviewer sees/reads something on Facebook, then it should be off limits to use that information in approving/denying the cache publication. However, I realize we live in a computer mediated society, and college admissions offices look at Facebook before accepting a student and employers use Facebook before offering a position to a potential employee. Again, I think, strictly my opinion, the fair, kind and proper thing to do in my situation was for the person who "reported me" to the reviewer could have taken a more kind and gentler approach. To be clear, I was "reported" as per what the reviewer sent to me. To look at it in a different way, if a child does something wrong, would it be better to yell, and scream and discipline the child? or would it be more conducive to point out what the child did wrong, make it a learning process, and hopefully the child will carry the lesson with them. Of course, there are different scenarios, so lets save the back and forth. Plainly, it would have been nicer and more conducive for the Facebook person to have corrected me, not to report me. End of story.I have learned my lesson, however, by the wrong approach.

An excellent post to close on.

[Keystone]

The OP reported herself by putting the information into a reviewer's inbox. We will have to disagree on that, I guess.

 

Frequently, reviewers are criticized in these Forums for being inconsistent from one territory to the next. Here, we have an example of two reviewers in adjoining territories, coordinating closely with one another. It would be a good thing for reviewers in Connecticut, southeastern New York, Northern Jersey and Northeastern PA to all handle graffiti / defacement issues in the same way, to promote consistency.

 

Reviewers are also geocachers, and in areas like this which border the review territories for several volunteers (four in this case) it is a good thing for one reviewer to pass along information to their colleagues when it comes to their attention. This can happen when something is found while geocaching (reviewers cache outside their own territory) or when something comes to the reviewer's attention by email. Often, territories are shared by several reviewers and information is shared using special tools available to us. This process also promotes consistency.

 

We also see criticism in these forums when questionable caches are discussed: "Two reviewers found this cache and didn't do anything about it." So here, a reviewer actually did something with the information dropped in his lap. You can't have it both ways.

 

I think that the name-calling, disrespect, mischaracterization and misquoting is the biggest problem in this thread, but I'm happy to let it continue unless and until the OP wants to close it. The OP will discover that, despite this thread, future cache submissions from their account will be reviewed fairly and in accordance with the listing guidelines.

[+Don_J]

The OP reported herself by putting the information into a reviewer's inbox. We will have to disagree on that, I guess.

 

Frequently, reviewers are criticized in these Forums for being inconsistent from one territory to the next. Here, we have an example of two reviewers in adjoining territories, coordinating closely with one another. It would be a good thing for reviewers in Connecticut, southeastern New York, Northern Jersey and Northeastern PA to all handle graffiti / defacement issues in the same way, to promote consistency.

 

Reviewers are also geocachers, and in areas like this which border the review territories for several volunteers (four in this case) it is a good thing for one reviewer to pass along information to their colleagues when it comes to their attention. This can happen when something is found while geocaching (reviewers cache outside their own territory) or when something comes to the reviewer's attention by email. Often, territories are shared by several reviewers and information is shared using special tools available to us. This process also promotes consistency.

 

We also see criticism in these forums when questionable caches are discussed: "Two reviewers found this cache and didn't do anything about it." So here, a reviewer actually did something with the information dropped in his lap. You can't have it both ways.

 

I think that the name-calling, disrespect, mischaracterization and misquoting is the biggest problem in this thread, but I'm happy to let it continue unless and until the OP wants to close it. The OP will discover that, despite this thread, future cache submissions from their account will be reviewed fairly and in accordance with the listing guidelines.

 

LVDJ, if I may, perhaps I can add a little understanding to this. Keystone is a volunteer reviewer. As such, he has access to information that the rest us do not have access to. He is telling you that the person that reported you to your reviewer is also a reviewer. That reviewer basically does not have the prerogative to contact you directly. His duty as a volunteer reviewer is to report things like this to the reviewer that handles the area. That reviewer did contact you personally, not publicly. Since you do not have any placed caches listed on your profile, this means that the listing was retracted at the same time that it was archived and the reviewer note to you was generated. No one but you and the volunteer reviewers have access to view that cache or any of the notes attached to it. Any notes or logs attached to that cache are hidden from the rest of us. If you had not posted any of this to the forum, none of us, or any other geocachers would know anything about it. You were not called out in public as you think.

 

I think that with the exception of a few individuals, everyone that has posted here has tried to be helpful. You have made it very clear that you understand what was wrong and that it won't be repeated. You have also made it clear that you are not going to let this discourage you from placing more caches. I think that that is a great attitude. Welcome to Geocaching and welcome to the forum where the current can be a bit rough at times.

[+LVDJ]

The OP reported herself by putting the information into a reviewer's inbox. We will have to disagree on that, I guess.

 

Frequently, reviewers are criticized in these Forums for being inconsistent from one territory to the next. Here, we have an example of two reviewers in adjoining territories, coordinating closely with one another. It would be a good thing for reviewers in Connecticut, southeastern New York, Northern Jersey and Northeastern PA to all handle graffiti / defacement issues in the same way, to promote consistency.

 

Reviewers are also geocachers, and in areas like this which border the review territories for several volunteers (four in this case) it is a good thing for one reviewer to pass along information to their colleagues when it comes to their attention. This can happen when something is found while geocaching (reviewers cache outside their own territory) or when something comes to the reviewer's attention by email. Often, territories are shared by several reviewers and information is shared using special tools available to us. This process also promotes consistency.

 

We also see criticism in these forums when questionable caches are discussed: "Two reviewers found this cache and didn't do anything about it." So here, a reviewer actually did something with the information dropped in his lap. You can't have it both ways.

 

I think that the name-calling, disrespect, mischaracterization and misquoting is the biggest problem in this thread, but I'm happy to let it continue unless and until the OP wants to close it. The OP will discover that, despite this thread, future cache submissions from their account will be reviewed fairly and in accordance with the listing guidelines.

 

LVDJ, if I may, perhaps I can add a little understanding to this. Keystone is a volunteer reviewer. As such, he has access to information that the rest us do not have access to. He is telling you that the person that reported you to your reviewer is also a reviewer. That reviewer basically does not have the prerogative to contact you directly. His duty as a volunteer reviewer is to report things like this to the reviewer that handles the area. That reviewer did contact you personally, not publicly. Since you do not have any placed caches listed on your profile, this means that the listing was retracted at the same time that it was archived and the reviewer note to you was generated. No one but you and the volunteer reviewers have access to view that cache or any of the notes attached to it. Any notes or logs attached to that cache are hidden from the rest of us. If you had not posted any of this to the forum, none of us, or any other geocachers would know anything about it. You were not called out in public as you think.

 

I think that with the exception of a few individuals, everyone that has posted here has tried to be helpful. You have made it very clear that you understand what was wrong and that it won't be repeated. You have also made it clear that you are not going to let this discourage you from placing more caches. I think that that is a great attitude. Welcome to Geocaching and welcome to the forum where the current can be a bit rough at times.

 

Don J: THANK YOU...as far as I am concerned, the issue is over and moving forward is the only way to go....Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

[Keystone]

Don J, thank you for your helpful summary. I'm writing to correct a few details that you filled in based on information available to you.

 

1. The cache submitted by the OP has never been published. It is not "archived."

2. The OP's home area reviewer disabled the listing based on the information about defacement. This is one customary method for handling caches that aren't ready for publication.

3. The reviewer provided detailed instructions on how to relocate the cache to a new area away from the graffiti, at which time the listing could be enabled and reviewed again for publication.

[AZcachemeister]

Carving up things is BAD!

 

Painting graffiti on stuff is BAD!

 

 

Doing things that put geocaching in a bad light when viewed by land managers and park rangers is BAD.

Find your own links to restrictive geocaching policies caused by reactions to our behaviors.

 

Yes, please show me links to land manager policies that are restrictive of Geocaching because some old, dead piece of wood was carved/written on/engraved to facilitate a Geocache hide.

 

If the carved stump had pre-dated the cache, would it have been OK?

If the stump had already rotted and fallen over, would it have been OK?

One of the oldest (and more revered) multi-caches around here uses some spray-paint graffiti as a reference, and indeed I own a puzzle that does the same. We didn't create the graffiti, but is acknowledging it's existance somehow wrong?

 

If carving some initials on an old tree stump was the greatest environmental impact the OP's activities had that day, they should be proud.

 

Odd chunks of wood that have been drilled out to accept a micro container are pretty common around here, yet nobody's undergarments seem to have become maladjusted by them. (except for those who DNF them)

 

Given the high numbers of caches placed on private property without permission, I would think this issue should fall pretty low on the 'things to be concerned about' list.

 

And in final analysis, I DO NOT ADVOCATE:

 

Co-ordinates carved in trees.

Co-ordinates written (in 'Sharpie') on playground equipment.

Co-ordinates written (in 'Sharpie') on signs in strip-mall parking lots.

Etc.

[+tozainamboku]

Don J, thank you for your helpful summary. I'm writing to correct a few details that you filled in based on information available to you.

 

1. The cache submitted by the OP has never been published. It is not "archived."

2. The OP's home area reviewer disabled the listing based on the information about defacement. This is one customary method for handling caches that aren't ready for publication.

3. The reviewer provided detailed instructions on how to relocate the cache to a new area away from the graffiti, at which time the listing could be enabled and reviewed again for publication.

What we still don't know is if either reviewer felt the initials were written on the dead tree to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

If this is the case, I hope the reasons for this were conveyed to the cache owner.

 

If the cache was not published simply because the reviewers felt that carving on trees reflects badly on geocaching, then the CO has a point. Even had they read the guidelines (which they seem to admit not doing), they would not have have seen a guideline that says if cachers carve their initials on a tree the cache may not be published.

 

It very well may be that Groundspeak has given reviewers guidance regarding the damage and defacement guideline to apply it in any case where they feel the damage will reflect badly on geocaching. However this is one more example of the "secret" guidelines that I have pointed out in the past. Sure the reviewers know the rules, perhaps even the forum regulars know the rules because we see the complaints when a cache is denied, but there is no way for a newbie to know the they had better not carve their initials on a tree and they sure as heck better not post on Facebook that that they did.

 

I believe that LVDJ is upset because in their first attempt to hide a cache they were blindsided by a requirement they could not have anticipated. Even had they carefully read the guidelines before hiding a cache, they is nothing they would have seen that says they cache would be denied if they carved their initials on a spur of the moment romantic impulse. On top of this, they may have read the note from the reviewer as judgmental. While the reviewer was probably just pointing out the guidelines, they took it as criticism of harming nature which they felt they had not done. Perhaps the reviewer could have better indicated what guideline was violated and given a little of the rationale for the guideline.

[Keystone]

What we still don't know is if either reviewer felt the initials were written on the dead tree to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

It was not a huge leap of logic after reading the following email notification of a Facebook post:

"We placed our 1st Geocache today, in honor of our 12th wedding anniversary which is on Wednesday, October 24th. As a hint to find it, we put our initials on a tree. Hopefully it will be published soon...."

 

If this is the case, I hope the reasons for this were conveyed to the cache owner.

Yes. The reviewer quoted the applicable guideline and then wrote several additional sentences explaining why their actions were problematic, and how to go about getting their cache published at a different location. Published guidelines are, by definition, not "secret." Once again, here is the published guideline. I've added emphasis in bold for comparison to the Facebook post:

 

Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property.

 

Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place,

clue,

or means of logging a find.

[Clan Riffster]

Ideally a cache will be placed so it can be reached from the path.

Placing caches near established trails is a sure fire way to create social trails. When I was working with Seminole County Natural Lands to establish a geocaching policy, one rule they would not budge on was their requirement that caches be placed within 6' of established trails. When I inquired about their reasons for this, they explained that it was to reduce social trails. They had discovered a cache on their property by following a social trail, and felt that rule would prevent further damage.

 

I pointed out that their rule would have the opposite effect, as a cache which is close to a trail will generally have one route in, whereas a cache that is way off the trail has many possible routes. They argued about this for a while, so I asked them which cache they found which had such a drastic social trail. I pointed out to them that the cache in question was 6' from the trail.

 

They refused to budge, and as a result, you no longer need a GPSr to find the caches on their properties. Just hike the established trails till you find a social trail. Three steps later you'll have the cache in hand.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Ideally a cache will be placed so it can be reached from the path.

Placing caches near established trails is a sure fire way to create social trails. When I was working with Seminole County Natural Lands to establish a geocaching policy, one rule they would not budge on was their requirement that caches be placed within 6' of established trails. When I inquired about their reasons for this, they explained that it was to reduce social trails. They had discovered a cache on their property by following a social trail, and felt that rule would prevent further damage.

 

I pointed out that their rule would have the opposite effect, as a cache which is close to a trail will generally have one route in, whereas a cache that is way off the trail has many possible routes. They argued about this for a while, so I asked them which cache they found which had such a drastic social trail. I pointed out to them that the cache in question was 6' from the trail.

 

They refused to budge, and as a result, you no longer need a GPSr to find the caches on their properties. Just hike the established trails till you find a social trail. Three steps later you'll have the cache in hand.

 

When I said 'reach from the path' I meant literally that you would not have to move your feet off the path to reach it.

 

Your perspective is interesting. I have never heard this before. I would think it better to have a 6' geotrail than people randomly trampling a whole area. Especially if there are rare plants or animals.

 

Some of the areas here have written geocache policies. If you are to follow it and not disturb soild or vegetation, then caches much be reachable without cachers leaving the established path.

 

Here's an excerpt from one in our area:

 

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/events/geocache/pdf/geocache_policy.pdf

 

"Placement of Caches

Cache placement may only occur in areas accessible from established trails or along approved

travel routes (including remote backcountry areas that allow travel in areas without established

trails). Cache placement must not result in disturbing of soils, vegetation, wildlife or other

natural or cultural heritage phenomenon. Caches may not be placed within or near sensitive

sites or in “special feature” zones as outlined in protected area zoning plans. BC Parks retains

the right to remove any caches deemed to be located in an inappropriate location."

[+Sol seaker]

I was extremely upset with whomever took it upon his/herself to contact the reviewer and "REPORT" me. The Facebook person didn't have the common sense to send me a quick (private) message and help me learn the process of placing a cache. I am no longer part of the Facebook geocaching group.

 

I take full responsibility for "breaking the geocache rules," however, it would have been more conducive to me and the learning process, if the mean-spirited person who tattle-tailed on me recognize it was not the adult, responsible or geocache-friendly thing to do.

 

L

As a Facebook user, do you understand that members of a group can sign up to receive notifications when someone posts to the group's page?

 

Reviewers are allowed to be members of Facebook groups about geocaching. We are geocachers, too. So, when you made your post, any reviewer who was signed up for notifications would have received your post directly in their email.

 

Upon receiving information directly from a geocacher (your Facebook post), what's a reviewer to do? You "tattled" directly to that reviewer's email inbox when you posted about your defacement of the tree.

 

AGAIN: I take responsibility for doing the wrong thing, however, it would have been "nicer" if the Facebook user sent me a private message stating my mistake and I could have corrected it. As it stands now, the cache is archived/disabled. When my husband and I have a moment, we will replace it at another location sans defacement of the surrounding area.

You absolutely missed my point. Looking over my prior post, I think I omitted one thing you need to know. (Sorry about that.)

 

When a reviewer learns facts about a cache issue in another reviewer's territory, our normal operating protocol is for the first reviewer to contact the reviewer for the area where the cache is. So, in this example, the first reviewer (the one you keep calling a "tattle tale") received your statement in his email inbox. Following protocol, he advised the reviewer privately about the information he received. Your home area reviewer then advised you privately of the impact on your cache review. That was the right thing to do, to have the right reviewer communicate with you. "Tattling" would have occurred if either of those reviewers came here and started a forum thread called "look what LVDJ did." We don't do that.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

It is my OPINION, that if a reviewer sees/reads something on Facebook, then it should be off limits to use that information in approving/denying the cache publication. However, I realize we live in a computer mediated society, and college admissions offices look at Facebook before accepting a student and employers use Facebook before offering a position to a potential employee. Again, I think, strictly my opinion, the fair, kind and proper thing to do in my situation was for the person who "reported me" to the reviewer could have taken a more kind and gentler approach. To be clear, I was "reported" as per what the reviewer sent to me. To look at it in a different way, if a child does something wrong, would it be better to yell, and scream and discipline the child? or would it be more conducive to point out what the child did wrong, make it a learning process, and hopefully the child will carry the lesson with them. Of course, there are different scenarios, so lets save the back and forth. Plainly, it would have been nicer and more conducive for the Facebook person to have corrected me, not to report me. End of story.I have learned my lesson, however, by the wrong approach.

 

 

The point you're missing, is that it's not within the geocaching guidelines. When you get mad at the person who reported you, whoever it is, you're blaming someone else for what you yourself did.

 

You're saying, "It's their fault I didn't get away with breaking the guidelines!"

 

You're the one who broke the guidelines.

If the reviewer hadn't found out this way, a cacher would have reported it.

Cachers report caches that break the guidelines.

If it wasn't the reviewer, it would have been a cacher.

 

Take responsibility for your actions that could only end in turning someone into a "tattletale".

 

 

These rules are in place for a reason.

 

One new cacher sees your tree and goes out and carves a live tree.

The people who run the park find out why the tree was carved and bans caches from all the parks in the city. Etc. etc.

The results of your actions could have had far reaching consequences. Thank the reviewer who kept worse from happening.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Sol seaker

[+ras_oscar]

I find it childish to refer to the "person" who alerted the reviewer to your tree carving as "mean-spirited" and a "tattle-tail". It seems likely that you would have been upset either way since they did nothing "mean" to you. That sentiment implies that the "tattle-tail" should have left things alone so that you could enjoy your carving in peace.

 

The adult, responsible, and geocache friendly thing to do is to not go about carving geocache clues into the environment.

 

I'm glad you have a better understanding of the guidelines and I am sure they will become second nature to you, as they have to us, as you continue your caching adventures. Welcome to our community.

[+bflentje]

What is kind of ironic is that we now protect areas where some ancient people engraved pictures in stone or trees and people come from all over to see this "damage". I guess a lot of people are glad there weren't any guidelines back then.

 

Pompeys Pillar in Montana.. dadgum that Lewis and Clark expedition. The Jeffers Petroglyphs in central Minnesota.. dadgum those ancient peoples. The whole crowd should be burned at the stake.