Cache breaks local by-law

[+rovers3]

My question is, whose responsibility is it when a cache placement breaks a local by-law?

This is a general question but it was triggered by a specific situation.

In this case the by-law in question makes it illegal to climb a tree in city parks and there is a fine of $365 for climbing a tree without a permit.

 

See story that was published May 9, 2013 at the following

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/05/09/man_claims_assault_by_officer_who_fined_him_365_for_climbing_tree_without_permit.html

 

Man claims assault by officer who fined him $365 for climbing tree without permit

 

This is not about whether the officer was overly aggressive though it seems like he was but about breaking the bylaw by placing a cache in a place where one has to break a by-law to place it and also to retrieve it.

 

What brought this to my attention and concern was that there are at least 3 caches in fairly close to home, the last one was just published a few days ago, that require the climbing of a tree in a city park to retrieve the cache. I am not totally against climbing trees to retrieve a cache, I just did one yesterday, although one may argue that if the tree is climbed by many cachers then there is a good chance that the tree will be badly damaged.

 

Is the onus on our community, cachers and reviewers, to police a situation like this or just to let it go by and either get the cache or ignore it?

If we know of a cache that contravenes a local by-law should we report it to the reviewer and should a reviewers be told not to publish caches that knowingly contravene local by-laws?

[f5f6f7f8]

Can the cache be retrieved and replaced using a pole instead of climbing the tree? Does the cache listing say not to climb trees?

 

From the article:

An obscure part of the Toronto Municipal Code states that, “No person shall in a park, unless authorized by permit, climb, move or remove the whole or any part of a tree, rock, boulder rock face or remove soil, sand or wood."

 

That is awfully strict if you cannot move a rock or a piece of wood. A lot of hides will be illegal.

[AZcachemeister]

You should report this privately to your local reviewer.

 

Perhaps the reviewer is not aware of the local prohibition against climbing trees in parks.

Perhaps the reviewer can't tell that a tree needs to be climbed to get to the cache (by reading the write-up).

[+stijnhommes]

The local bylaw is clearly too strict if you can't even move or remove a grain of sand. Any hiker with sand stuck in their hiking boots would technically be violating this law.

The caching community needs to sit down with the local authorities and have this by-law clarified.

 

However, if you can be fined for climbing trees, CO's need to be responsible and not tempt other cachers to break those laws and get fined: by clearly mentioning the prohibition in the cache description and offering an alternative way to retrieve or log the cache.

[+cerberus1]

An obscure part of the Toronto Municipal Code states that, “No person shall in a park, unless authorized by permit, climb, move or remove the whole or any part of a tree, rock, boulder rock face or remove soil, sand or wood."

Sounds like that pretty-much ends caching within Toronto parks, not just their trees.

- Unless permits to hide are issued.

But...

Enforcing that bylaw “really happens on a case-by-case basis,” said 14 Division Staff Sgt. Robert Stewart, who personally hasn’t heard of a ticket issued for climbing a tree in his or any other division in about 18 years.

Sounds like a cop wanted to hassle the guy, used a law few (have ever) enforced and went overboard.

Seems that if a Dept Sgt hasn't seen tickets issued for climbing trees in about 18 years, how much of an issue is it?

 

If cachers received permission to hide in Toronto parks, now would be a good time to clarify this position with Parks and Recreation.

Eighteen years is a long time (the "obscure" law must be older) and either those in P&R probably haven't been around long enough to know of it's existance, believed it was no longer enforced, or permits negate the "obscure law".

Edited May 20, 2013 by cerberus1

[4wheelin_fool]

The proper thing to do is to call the authorities and verify that it is illegal, then contact the cache owners and tell them. If there is no reply, let the reviewer know about it. If the reviewer ignores you, let us know about it.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

The local bylaw is clearly too strict if you can't even move or remove a grain of sand. Any hiker with sand stuck in their hiking boots would technically be violating this law.

The caching community needs to sit down with the local authorities and have this by-law clarified.

 

However, if you can be fined for climbing trees, CO's need to be responsible and not tempt other cachers to break those laws and get fined: by clearly mentioning the prohibition in the cache description and offering an alternative way to retrieve or log the cache.

 

"...or remove soil, sand or wood."

 

I'd like to think they mean taking wheelbarrows full of soil or sand, and not incidental such as dust or dirt in your shoes.

[+rovers3]

The last cache that I referred to leaves no doubt that you need to climb a tree to retrieve the cache. It is in the name and in the description.

 

I know of at least one cacher that was warned a few years ago, by the authorities, that it was illegal to climb trees in the city.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

The proper thing to do is to call the authorities and verify that it is illegal, then contact the cache owners and tell them. If there is no reply, let the reviewer know about it. If the reviewer ignores you, let us know about it.

 

I would drop the reviewer a note, and let them deal with it. Less angst that way.

[+wmpastor]

The last cache that I referred to leaves no doubt that you need to climb a tree to retrieve the cache. It is in the name and in the description.

 

I know of at least one cacher that was warned a few years ago, by the authorities, that it was illegal to climb trees in the city.

That's a shame. Tree hides are fun and a bit out of the ordinary. They're also surprisingly hard to place - forest settings cause trees to grow tall and thin, and only certain types of trees have a good branch pattern anyway. (I'm not counting the so-called tree hides that you can reach from the ground.) Then there are some parks where - even if there's not a specific rule - tree climbing doesn't seem to work because of the stealth factor or because an "unwritten rule."

[+ngrrfan]

"...or remove soil, sand or wood."

 

I'd like to think they mean taking wheelbarrows full of soil or sand, and not incidental such as dust or dirt in your shoes.

Although you would "like to think" that, it can still be used by an overzealous LEO and the judge would have to side with the letter of the law. Never assume that "common sense" may prevail.

[+stijnhommes]

The local bylaw is clearly too strict if you can't even move or remove a grain of sand. Any hiker with sand stuck in their hiking boots would technically be violating this law.

The caching community needs to sit down with the local authorities and have this by-law clarified.

 

However, if you can be fined for climbing trees, CO's need to be responsible and not tempt other cachers to break those laws and get fined: by clearly mentioning the prohibition in the cache description and offering an alternative way to retrieve or log the cache.

 

"...or remove soil, sand or wood."

 

I'd like to think they mean taking wheelbarrows full of soil or sand, and not incidental such as dust or dirt in your shoes.

I'm literally referring to the letter of the by-law. The fact we're having this discussion means it was improperly worded, leaving the exact meaning and intention unclear.

 

The last cache that I referred to leaves no doubt that you need to climb a tree to retrieve the cache. It is in the name and in the description.

 

I know of at least one cacher that was warned a few years ago, by the authorities, that it was illegal to climb trees in the city.

<sarcasm>What a lovely city.</sarcasm> Kids need to be allowed to climb trees without being slapped with massive fines...

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

The local bylaw is clearly too strict if you can't even move or remove a grain of sand. Any hiker with sand stuck in their hiking boots would technically be violating this law.

The caching community needs to sit down with the local authorities and have this by-law clarified.

 

However, if you can be fined for climbing trees, CO's need to be responsible and not tempt other cachers to break those laws and get fined: by clearly mentioning the prohibition in the cache description and offering an alternative way to retrieve or log the cache.

 

"...or remove soil, sand or wood."

 

I'd like to think they mean taking wheelbarrows full of soil or sand, and not incidental such as dust or dirt in your shoes.

I'm literally referring to the letter of the by-law. The fact we're having this discussion means it was improperly worded, leaving the exact meaning and intention unclear.

 

The last cache that I referred to leaves no doubt that you need to climb a tree to retrieve the cache. It is in the name and in the description.

 

I know of at least one cacher that was warned a few years ago, by the authorities, that it was illegal to climb trees in the city.

<sarcasm>What a lovely city.</sarcasm> Kids need to be allowed to climb trees without being slapped with massive fines...

 

Is this a way for the city to avoid legal issues when said kids fall out of trees?

[+The A-Team]

Is this a way for the city to avoid legal issues when said kids fall out of trees?

Couldn't they do that by nailing a disclaimer to the tree?

"By performing the act of climbing on the tree to which this notice is affixed, you waive all liability by the City of Toronto for any injuries incurred by such action."

Then they just need to nail one to every tree in the city.

[4wheelin_fool]

The local bylaw is clearly too strict if you can't even move or remove a grain of sand. Any hiker with sand stuck in their hiking boots would technically be violating this law.

The caching community needs to sit down with the local authorities and have this by-law clarified.

 

However, if you can be fined for climbing trees, CO's need to be responsible and not tempt other cachers to break those laws and get fined: by clearly mentioning the prohibition in the cache description and offering an alternative way to retrieve or log the cache.

 

"...or remove soil, sand or wood."

 

I'd like to think they mean taking wheelbarrows full of soil or sand, and not incidental such as dust or dirt in your shoes.

I'm literally referring to the letter of the by-law. The fact we're having this discussion means it was improperly worded, leaving the exact meaning and intention unclear.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that it means purposely removing plants and rocks from the park. Most public areas have the same basic prohibition.

 

As for moving items around within the park, the wording is intentionally vague to allow leeway, and to prevent loopholes. It's likely that they were talking about digging, or permanently altering or disturbing major components of the area. They also probably have heard about geocaching and realize that it is a low impact activity. Climbing trees is a higher impact with bark wearing off, and branches breaking, not to mention the impact of falling to the ground.

Edited May 20, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+T.D.M.22]

You should report this privately to your local reviewer.

 

Perhaps the reviewer is not aware of the local prohibition against climbing trees in parks.

Perhaps the reviewer can't tell that a tree needs to be climbed to get to the cache (by reading the write-up).

 

I disagree- if there is any other way to get the cache(ladder, stick, whatever) it's up to the cacher to know local laws. You would say its the responsibility of the CO or reviewer to make sure people don't speed for FTF, or go through a stop sign, or prevent people from going through private property to get to the cache.

 

Of course if the cache is only reachable by a cacher being in the tree then it's a different story.

[+frinklabs]

I believe this is the cache in question: GC4C90A - Up In A Tree

 

This is a possible grey area where the local Toronto park bylaws might not apply; ground zero appears to be within the floodplain of the Humber River. Thus, it might be under the bailiwick of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

 

TRCA has an online submission process for getting caches published within their mandated areas and appear to work with the reviewers. A number of my placed caches are within their area of responsibility and were probably grandfathered in before the process was implemented. My last mystery cache was subject to their approval before being published and I will say that they took the placement as-is with no alterations, and approved it very quickly (for a quasi-governmental body).

 

Had our allegedly-literally-crack-headed municipal government been involved, I am guessing the cache would have either been published immediately with no oversight or would still be mired in a process that was under review as a possible revenue tool.

 

EDIT: Fixed urls

Edited May 20, 2013 by frinklabs

[7rxc]

First question I would ask the OP...

 

Is this a bylaw of the original City of Toronto, or of the relatively new Toronto (whatever) that renamed Metropolitan Toronto not long ago?

 

The old City of Toronto was a much smaller entity and city parks were much more restricted in size and even in viability, compared to the vast network of Metro Parks. Metro still had lots of rules re parks, but there were vast differences compared to City of Toronto (the borough).

 

So to start with it is necessary to determine which park system you are dealing with. The bicycling community ran into lots of similar things when comparing wants and needs under both the Metro Cycling Committee and the longer established Toronto City Cycling Committee. I've lost track of what has changed since the rework back there, but I can say that most such bylaws were City of Toronto, and mostly used by the police as useful tools they could use to remove 'undesirable elements' from parks IF needed. I'd also guess that someone complained since it was not a commonly known bylaw. Toronto had many such 'bylaws'... like the one that required hoteliers to provide boarding for people who had horses and coaches... that was used for good effect when Calgary came down to one Grey Cup... and forced the Royal York to do so... in a good natured way of course.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+frinklabs]

Is this a bylaw of the original City of Toronto, or of the relatively new Toronto (whatever) that renamed Metropolitan Toronto not long ago?

 

Definitely a bylaw of the new amalgamated City of Toronto. Check out the PDF of the Parks section:

 

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_608.pdf

 

The definitions at the beginning of this document denote by name the former municipalities' regulations that were amended and subsumed for the greater good, including the former Etobicoke wherein the subject cache is located.

 

That document is a major buzzkill, by the way. No helium balloons. No kites with metal line. No model rockets. Yawn.

[+rovers3]

"My question is, whose responsibility is it when a cache placement breaks a local by-law?

This is a general question but it was triggered by a specific situation.

 

Is the onus on our community, cachers and reviewers, to police a situation like this or just to let it go by and either get the cache or ignore it?

If we know of a cache that contravenes a local by-law should we report it to the reviewer and should a reviewers be told not to publish caches that knowingly contravene local by-laws? "

 

The above was really what I wanted to discuss.

Not specifically about trees or the City of Toronto but in any area where a by-law has been broken or leads one to break a by-law by the placement of a cache.

[7rxc]

I believe this is the cache in question: GC4C90A - Up In A Tree

 

This is a possible grey area where the local Toronto park bylaws might not apply; ground zero appears to be within the floodplain of the Humber River. Thus, it might be under the bailiwick of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

 

TRCA has an online submission process for getting caches published within their mandated areas and appear to work with the reviewers. A number of my placed caches are within their area of responsibility and were probably grandfathered in before the process was implemented. My last mystery cache was subject to their approval before being published and I will say that they took the placement as-is with no alterations, and approved it very quickly (for a quasi-governmental body).

 

Had our allegedly-literally-crack-headed municipal government been involved, I am guessing the cache would have either been published immediately with no oversight or would still be mired in a process that was under review as a possible revenue tool.

 

EDIT: Fixed urls

 

I see we think similarly. When I was active there, the Humber Parks were under Metro Parks. That would be Toronto Parks and Culture? They certainly seem to have been busy mixing up names and AORs since I left in 95.

Like I said, find the right one for the cache in question and research it. But if the bylaw was in force 18 years ago (and an older one yet) it was probably the old borough City of Toronto in the OP. Metro Parks even encouraged people to 'Walk on the Grass'. They did not condone damage, or violation of ESAs under their supervision. The old MTRCA was mostly active OUTSIDE the Metro boundary, although Metro was a member. AND it was mostly about water and flood control, with support for recreational and educational aspects of the environment and history. Certainly ecological concerns were addressed, but there were many subprojects and groups as well. That seems to have changed some recently.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+fizzymagic]

My question is, whose responsibility is it when a cache placement breaks a local by-law?

 

Pedantic (but important) points:

• *The cache does not break any bylaw. Caches are inanimate and cannot break laws.
  *The cache placement is likewise inanimate and does not break the bylaw. It could be that a placement violates a law, but that is not the case here.
  *The cacher placing the cache might have broken the bylaw.
  *Cachers retrieving the cache might violate the bylaw.

 

I think we are often too quick to place the blame on a cache placement when the real blame lies with the seeker.

 

Nobody is forcing anyone to break any laws. Let's be very clear about that.

[+NanCycle]

Then there's this:

 

A. While in a park, no person shall:

 

(4) Attach in any manner any object or thing to a tree or part of a tree located in a

park except with the prior written approval of the Commissioner.

 

So even if climbing is not required to retrieve it, the cache is prohibited from being attached to the tree.

 

And these:

 

A. While in a park, no person shall:

 

(2) Cast, throw or in any way propel any object in a manner that may or does

endanger or cause injury or damage to a person or property;

 

I guess there's no playing catch or frisbee either. And no throwing snowballs.

 

 

In a park, no person shall enter any portion of any washroom, bathhouse, change room or

recreation facility set apart for the opposite sex.

 

No baby boys in the women's rooms. Or vice versa.

[7rxc]

"My question is, whose responsibility is it when a cache placement breaks a local by-law?

This is a general question but it was triggered by a specific situation.

 

Is the onus on our community, cachers and reviewers, to police a situation like this or just to let it go by and either get the cache or ignore it?

If we know of a cache that contravenes a local by-law should we report it to the reviewer and should a reviewers be told not to publish caches that knowingly contravene local by-laws? "

 

The above was really what I wanted to discuss.

Not specifically about trees or the City of Toronto but in any area where a by-law has been broken or leads one to break a by-law by the placement of a cache.

 

Ok... I've snipped a bit of this as not relevant to the discussion...

 

Fundamental Placement Guidelines

 

All local laws and documented land management policies apply.

 

You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.

 

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

 

Wildlife and the natural environment are not harmed in the pursuit of geocaching.

 

Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations.

 

I agree with Fizzymagic. The Creator and Seeker are both responsible for violation of the bylaw. People who know about it should at least mention it to a reviewer when it comes to their attention since such action will bear badly on Geocaching. Call it self preservation.

 

Beyond that citizens have a right and responsibility to call into question (at least) bad or outdated laws or by-laws. Happens all the time, some change some don't. Many governments are only reacting to fear of liability. Using my bike committee analogy. One City of TO councilor came to Metro Cycle Committee to seek support to ban ALL bikes (including trikes) from all sidewalks in CoT. We simply asked if they really wanted to be known as the person forcing little kids to ride in the street. Lawsuits would have destroyed them after the first accident one way or another. We settled on makeing some useful restrictions on sidewalk riders based on the Metro Parks model, which was already accepted as normality for rec paths other than streets. Don't know what exists now, but at the time it was a great improvement based on consensus of all parties, NOT one flawed opinion. So please don't be too against the discussion of the root of the problem at hand. Perhaps it should be split off, but I think it has been discussed enough here. Local residents (cachers) have to work it out now.

 

I voted when I left TO for the West. As to the TO news... all I can say is that they thought ML was crazy!

 

Doug 7rxc

[4wheelin_fool]

There is a big difference between an individual climbing a tree on their own accord, and someone else posting the location online and inviting 100 people to do the same. Geocaching is not an underground activity, as it is mentioned frequently in news articles and magazines. Eventually when the land managers find out that cachers are openly breaking their rules, they may find it rather disrespectful and ban the entire activity, rather than constantly monitor the site for violations. Yes, that has happened before, and what may eventually occur here.

[team tisri]

I always figure when I'm looking for a cache I'm responsible for my actions. If the cache is up a tree and there's a big sign in the park that says "No tree climbing" then I get to choose whether to ignore the cache or ignore the rule.

 

If it's impossible to get to a cache without breaking local laws then a Needs Archived log is in order. It not only tells the owner and reviewer that there's a problem but also tells other people who might be planning to visit. It would be annoying if someone made a special visit to a cache only to realise they couldn't get it without breaking the law.

 

It does often seem that, in theory at least, some laws do allow for conclusions which are clearly absurd (such as the ban on using facilities for the opposite sex banning a mother taking her 3-month-old son into the ladies' room to change his nappy) but the only alternative would be to either get wrapped up in endless definitions or to remove the law entirely. Removing the law entirely would effectively allow people to wander in and out of the "wrong" facilities without fear of sanction; the endless definitions would invariably end up with equally silly situations such as a mother being allowed to take her 3-year-old son into the ladies' room so he could take a leak but another mother with a son who was three years and one week old being told he had to use the mens' room and be sent in there on his own. We can pick whatever cutoff age we want and enforcement would still be impossible unless it was clearly being abused, in which case we might as well have no cutoff and accept that a mother will take her baby son into the ladies' room while also expecting that by the time he's in his teens he uses the mens' room on his own.

 

Even so, if the law says "Thou shalt not" and a cacher decides they are going to do it anyway they have to take responsibility. From there whether it's climbing a tree, assuming the clause on nudity requiring the lower portions of the female breast to be covered don't apply to their 3-year-old daughter or letting their child ride their bicycle with stabilisers at walking pace (I think they're called training wheels in the US) on a path that technically doesn't allow cycling becomes immaterial.

[AZcachemeister]

You should report this privately to your local reviewer.

 

Perhaps the reviewer is not aware of the local prohibition against climbing trees in parks.

Perhaps the reviewer can't tell that a tree needs to be climbed to get to the cache (by reading the write-up).

 

I disagree- if there is any other way to get the cache(ladder, stick, whatever) it's up to the cacher to know local laws. You would say its the responsibility of the CO or reviewer to make sure people don't speed for FTF, or go through a stop sign, or prevent people from going through private property to get to the cache.

 

Of course if the cache is only reachable by a cacher being in the tree then it's a different story.

 

Actually I wouldn't 'say its the responsibility of the CO or reviewer to make sure people don't speed for FTF, or go through a stop sign, or prevent people from going through private property to get to the cache'.

 

But, I would say the CO should point out that there are access route that shouldn't be used due to private property issues.

 

As well, I would say the reviewer does need to be aware of the local ordinances in his review territory.

 

If a cacher wants to rent one of these,

 

 

then they would be in the clear of any tree-climbing ordinances.

 

But perhaps a 'driving a motor vehicle in a park' citation may result instead.

[+SwineFlew]

So there is a by law of no tree climbing because of a safely issue? I know G$ doesnt archived caches due to safely issue, but long story short, they are if they archived that cache in the park.

[+cheech gang]

So there is a by law of no tree climbing because of a safely issue? I know G$ doesnt archived caches due to safely issue, but long story short, they are if they archived that cache in the park.

 

The "logic" here boggles the mind.

[+JL_HSTRE]

It is quite possible the hider, Reviewer, and finder were all unaware of the bylaw. Especially if it is infrequently enforced.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

It is quite possible the hider, Reviewer, and finder were all unaware of the bylaw. Especially if it is infrequently enforced.

 

And that is why I would drop an email to the Reviewer, and let them sort things out.

[4wheelin_fool]

It is quite possible the hider, Reviewer, and finder were all unaware of the bylaw. Especially if it is infrequently enforced.

 

And that is why I would drop an email to the Reviewer, and let them sort things out.

 

They might not be enforcing it much at all.

 

However if they read in the news about tree climbing geocaching in their parks, the public embarrassment may trigger a reaction that puts an end to it completely.

[+NanCycle]

You should report this privately to your local reviewer.

 

Perhaps the reviewer is not aware of the local prohibition against climbing trees in parks.

Perhaps the reviewer can't tell that a tree needs to be climbed to get to the cache (by reading the write-up).

 

I disagree- if there is any other way to get the cache(ladder, stick, whatever) it's up to the cacher to know local laws. You would say its the responsibility of the CO or reviewer to make sure people don't speed for FTF, or go through a stop sign, or prevent people from going through private property to get to the cache.

 

Of course if the cache is only reachable by a cacher being in the tree then it's a different story.

 

Actually I wouldn't 'say its the responsibility of the CO or reviewer to make sure people don't speed for FTF, or go through a stop sign, or prevent people from going through private property to get to the cache'.

 

But, I would say the CO should point out that there are access route that shouldn't be used due to private property issues.

 

As well, I would say the reviewer does need to be aware of the local ordinances in his review territory.

 

If a cacher wants to rent one of these,

 

 

then they would be in the clear of any tree-climbing ordinances.

 

But perhaps a 'driving a motor vehicle in a park' citation may result instead.

 

Or this one:

 

§ 608-31. Trucks and commercial vehicles

Unless authorized by permit, no person shall drive, operate, pull or ride in a park:

A. Heavy machinery or equipment of any description and whatever the mode of

power;

[+sbell111]

What is the park system's geocache placement policy? If they approve the location of each cache, then they have permitted the climbing of the associated tree and there is no issue to report.

[4wheelin_fool]

What is the park system's geocache placement policy? If they approve the location of each cache, then they have permitted the climbing of the associated tree and there is no issue to report.

 

Huh?

 

Yes, if explicit permission was granted for each cache, then it would be fine.

But that is not the case here.

Edited May 23, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+CanadianRockies]

What is the park system's geocache placement policy? If they approve the location of each cache, then they have permitted the climbing of the associated tree and there is no issue to report.

Even if they approve a particular location, that doesn't necessarily mean they approve all methods of finding it. For example, they might frown upon geocachers digging holes in their park to search for a geocache. Likewise with tree climbing.

[+M 5]

The opening post said that the guy got fined for climbing a tree without permit. So if you get a permit to climb the tree, then it is legal. It would be nice for the cache page to give that info (don't konw if it does or not), but it isn't illegal, just harder to get legally. Of course, most finders will not take the effort to find out, even if it is only reading the cache page, but it doesn' make the cache itself lawbreaking as the op suggests.

[+sbell111]

What is the park system's geocache placement policy? If they approve the location of each cache, then they have permitted the climbing of the associated tree and there is no issue to report.

 

Huh?

 

Yes, if explicit permission was granted for each cache, then it would be fine.

But that is not the case here.

How do you know that those caches don't have explicit permission? Many park system require it and it is my understanding that teh reviewers will deny the listings if evidence of same isn't produced.

[4wheelin_fool]

What is the park system's geocache placement policy? If they approve the location of each cache, then they have permitted the climbing of the associated tree and there is no issue to report.

 

Huh?

 

Yes, if explicit permission was granted for each cache, then it would be fine.

But that is not the case here.

How do you know that those caches don't have explicit permission? Many park system require it and it is my understanding that teh reviewers will deny the listings if evidence of same isn't produced.

 

South Humber park is under jurisdiction of theToronto park system which has a blanket permission policy.

 

Purposely ignoring known laws, especially in light of a recent arrest such as you are suggesting, is frequently the catalyst that triggers restrictions such as permits or outright bannation. In another thread it was remarked at how some states such as NY and PA have a rigorous permit system in place, while other states such as NJ have no permit system, and NM has openly welcomed cachers. In each case there is some history behind the excessive regulations usually with cachers playing dumb about regulations or simply being disrespectful. I notice you reside in Tennessee, which has an outright ban on geocaches in its state parks. Coincidence?

Edited May 23, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[4wheelin_fool]

A second consecutive DNF has been posted.

 

I believe this is the cache in question: GC4C90A - Up In A Tree

 

This is a possible grey area where the local Toronto park bylaws might not apply; ground zero appears to be within the floodplain of the Humber River. Thus, it might be under the bailiwick of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

 

It appears to be neither park property or TRCA jurisdiction, as both finders and Google satellite images suggest rather that it is in someone's yard.

[4wheelin_fool]

Its actually amusing that this one was identified as breaking a park by-law, when it's really in someone's yard.

 

Wonder who took it? Property owner? Geocacher? Muggle?

[+OZ2CPU]

Did he sign it and log it as found ?

365 $ for a cache is not the most expensive

Some of us do, so no big deal.

But i would just bring one of my geo-sticks

And sign it without climbing that tree,

Or get a permit to climb it, if that is easy to get..

But it must be mentioned on the cache page.

[+The Rat]

The Toronto tree-climber in the article wasn't geocaching. The real issue is common sense, not obscure rules like this. What about caches on private property placed without the owner's permission? There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of caches around here hidden in parking lots (LPCs, for example) or parks without the knowledge of the property owner, and therefore, unless there is a posted geocaching policy such as some parks have, the cache has been placed without the owner's permission in violation of GC.com rules and may be a form of trespassing. Just because a parking lot is publicly accessible doesn't make it public property. Many business owners want their lots to be used only by customers or only during certain hours. I see putting caches there as OK, but only if good judgment is used. As an example, I know of one large lot that had two geocaches in it, about 600 feet apart. The front part was used as customer parking for some small businesses like tax preparers, etc. The cache there was attached to the chain link fence separating the lot from the neighboring property, which was a vacant lot. The cache was right at the property line and accessible from the public sidewalk. The other one was first placed back behind the movie theater in the rear part of the property right near the electrical control box, actually behind the building. There were signs posted in that section of the lot indicating the lot was for customers of the theater during theater hours only. After a bunch of geocachers went for that one in the early morning when the theater was closed, the property manager came out and removed the cache. The CO replaced it once and the property manager removed it again. The CO then moved it to a lamp post in the middle of the movie parking portion of the lot. I got chased off by the manager when I went to retrieve it there. The CO moved the cache to a totally new area after that. When I later complained about the original placements I was rebuffed by a fellow geocacher as being unreasonable and hypocritical because LPCs are common and I've found the other cache in the same lot. He thought the second placement at least was OK. To me that's like comparing apples to rotten oranges. Where the property manager has made clear he doesn't want geocachers nosing around a "public" lot a cache shouldn't be placed there, and even if that hasn't happened, areas where the public doesn't normally go, like loading docks, utility connections, etc. should be off limits. Caches in such locations are reasonable if they are placed where the public is welcome at all hours and the cache can be retrieved without looking suspicious or threatening, but not otherwise.