Geocache Archive Requests

[Clan Riffster]

Yes, Clan Riffster, I ironically need to ask you to dial it back a notch. It's ironic because you're now on the opposite side of the "defend the group / attack the group" argument as the last time I asked you to dial it back a notch.

:lol:

Though, to be fair, I'm still promoting the concept of holding ndividuals accountable for their actions, as opposed to blaming an entire group just because a few members make bad decisions. Kinda like our last conversation.

[+gpsfun]

Circling back to the first post in this thread, the objective was to raise awareness of a situation, an objective that has clearly been met. Maybe it's time for us to grab our go bags and get outside and find something.

[Clan Riffster]

People make mistakes,

That's true. When folks make mistakes, they need to make reparations. When people make little mistakes, a simple acknowledgement of the error, along with an apology, will suffice. When folks make huge mistakes, say, for example, tramplng all over another cacher, and invoking the authority of a government entity to help enforce their trampling, such mistakes require greater reparation. Since the leadership of a certain group in question won't even acknowledge that they did wrong, I don't see them being all that interested in making things right.

 

CR, this is not your community nor your friends.

Oh. Sorry. My mistake. It was my impression that this was a discussion occurring in the general geocaching topics forum. I was not aware that entry into this conversation was limited to folks from <redacted>. Should we ask a Moderator to delete any comment made by anyone whose home coordinates are not within the loose boundaries of the orginazation in question? I see numerous posts in this thread from folks who do not call <redacted> home. Should all of these go away, or just those which are critical of the folks responsible for this mess? By selectively silencing those voices which do not parrot your views, this thread could kwickly resemble the aforementioned social media site, where all is butterflys and unicorns.

 

Get over yourself, you are acting like you have a horse in this race.

We all have a dog in this fight. This type of behavior could be seen as setting a precedent, for those whose attitudes are similar to the folks who created this mess. To misquote one of my favorite historical figures, "All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good to stand by, doing nothing". The entire geocaching global community needs to stand up and sound off, so that no one in a position of leadership in a geocaching group, will think that such antics will be tolerated.

 

(Edit to redact group and geographic references)

Edited November 30, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[+Viajero Perdido]

Anybody who has to deal with a land manager has a horse in this race.

 

And like someone else upthread mentioned, I'm SO glad to be part of a community of great people that has NO structure, constitution, bylaws, elections, titles, contact person, nothing. Just great people having fun. I think the only need for a formal organization is when you might need to deal with government, a concept that makes me shudder.

[+Glenn]

I am so glad we do not have a formal organization like this in Rhode Island.

 

Don't let what is being discussed here color how you see all other formal geocaching organizations. The members of this particular organization are airing their dirty laundry in a national forum and we are only seeing one side of this disagreement. There is lot of anti-organizational sentiment present without many counterpoints. This thread is less like a discussion and more like a public shaming.

 

I am sure that the people who are publicly shaming their local geocaching organization are grateful that this thread has been brought to national and even international attention. This thread should be in the Mid-Atlantic forum because it is a regional spat and isn't representative of geocaching organizations as a whole. I see little relevance on a national level of the discussion here. There is a group of people running some local geocaching organization that pissed off a bunch of their membership. We get that. How about we stop the NNJC bashing and get back on topic. If you want to bash the NNJC start that thread in the regional forums and have at it.

[Clan Riffster]

How about we stop the <redacted>* bashing and get back on topic.

I think that is the topic. Unless I completely misread the OP.

Though, I get what you are saying. I think this would be a perfectly relavent thread, if the name of the orginazation in question, along with geological references, were redacted, as indicated above. As cooler heads have mentioned, we, as a global community, should be discussing the behaviors involved, rather than the individuals involved. Those behaviors were, in my opinion, intolerable.

[+L0ne.R]

Don't let what is being discussed here color how you see all other formal geocaching organizations. The members of this particular organization are airing their dirty laundry in a national forum and we are only seeing one side of this disagreement.

 

Old Navy has been made aware of this thread in FB but has not come into the forums to explain the NNJC side.

 

I am sure that the people who are publicly shaming their local geocaching organization are grateful that this thread has been brought to national and even international attention. This thread should be in the Mid-Atlantic forum because it is a regional spat and isn't representative of geocaching organizations as a whole. I see little relevance on a national level of the discussion here. There is a group of people running some local geocaching organization that pissed off a bunch of their membership. We get that. How about we stop the NNJC bashing and get back on topic. If you want to bash the NNJC start that thread in the regional forums and have at it.

 

I'm pretty sure the OP's topic was started in the local forum then merged with the one that got started later in this forum. I believe whoever posted it here felt it was a national issue, a word of warning. I see it that way too. Something that needs to be curtailed before other geo-associations or geo-groups with close ties to park managers decide to take over a park/conservation area/local-state-or-national-trail.

Edited November 30, 2013 by L0ne R

[+tozainamboku]

It is in an evolutionary transition and perhaps has lost sight of its goal of promoting quality caching experiences for cachers locally.

Perhaps the slippery slope began with the bolded phrase. Most geocaching organization I've been involved with have a main goal of being a social club. They exist simply to bring local geocachers together by organizing events and providing an place for geocahers to discuss their hobby. Certainly there is room for effort to educate cachers on the guidelines and about any local guidelines that local parks have have. Or even more basic things like what containers are the best for different placements. There is also room to work with local land managers to promote geocaching. There is always a risk that a land manager may want to apply stricter rules than in the past and to have old caches removed so the land manager can implement his own vision. But at least if the organization's goal isn't to promote someone's vision of quality, the land manager might not lobby to get control of the organization and use it for that purposed.

[+CondorTrax]

.... I honestly feel that if this was for the greater good of geocaching the land manager would work to keep the current caches (or finding a way to incorporate them in).

 

Three of my caches were victim to archival for the Geo-Trail placed in Griggstown, This was my believe too. While I did have permission from the parks department and collaborated on the cache page write ups with the park manager, when the time came to create the Geo-Trail, I was informed that my caches had to go after living there for happily for 6 years.

 

I'm under the impression now that there is a hidden agenda, on top of a lot of unsavory and childish behaviors going on with that group.

At this point, I really regret that I gave into the archive request so easily without a proper discussion with the land manager again. While ultimately, archiving my caches was best for me, it wasn't best for the community and I apologies to my local communities for setting this precedent

Nik, I strongly believe that if you had been given all the details and not been deceived, you would have made the appropriate decision. No need to apologize. Others should be keenly aware of their poor behavior and make amends which includes issuing apologies, to start.

[Mr.Yuck]

Wait a minute here. I don't see anything wrong with Clan Riffsters posts. Other than him being seemingly randomly called out for "not having a horse in this race" by another poster. My credentials are 63 finds in New Jersey, none further South than Piscataway or New Brunswick, that I can recall. Don't make me post a YouTube video of a lame Joe Piscopo "I'm from Jeysey. Are you from Jeysey?" SNL skit. Because I can do it, you know.

 

Seriously though, land manager Geocachers demanding the archival of existing caches for a "Geotrail" affects us all.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

How about we stop the <redacted>* bashing and get back on topic.

I think that is the topic. Unless I completely misread the OP.

Though, I get what you are saying. I think this would be a perfectly relavent thread, if the name of the orginazation in question, along with geological references, were redacted, as indicated above. As cooler heads have mentioned, we, as a global community, should be discussing the behaviors involved, rather than the individuals involved. Those behaviors were, in my opinion, intolerable.

 

The behavior is indeed the issue here. I don't know the name of the organization and know none of those involved but its the " its my ball and I'm going to go home and take it with me " approach....I think the existing caches should remain, period. I can at least understand TPTB position that in doing so we may win the moral high ground but lose everything else ( the park for geocaching ).....I'm guessing, though, in a case of hardball that land manager is going to want caches in that park.

[Mr.Yuck]

How about we stop the <redacted>* bashing and get back on topic.

I think that is the topic. Unless I completely misread the OP.

Though, I get what you are saying. I think this would be a perfectly relavent thread, if the name of the orginazation in question, along with geological references, were redacted, as indicated above. As cooler heads have mentioned, we, as a global community, should be discussing the behaviors involved, rather than the individuals involved. Those behaviors were, in my opinion, intolerable.

 

The behavior is indeed the issue here. I don't know the name of the organization and know none of those involved but its the " its my ball and I'm going to go home and take it with me " approach....I think the existing caches should remain, period. I can at least understand TPTB position that in doing so we may win the moral high ground but lose everything else ( the park for geocaching ).....I'm guessing, though, in a case of hardball that land manager is going to want caches in that park.

 

You're not going to lose the park for Geocaching when the land manager is a 3,300 find Geocacher. Trust me on that one.

[+briansnat]

How about we stop the <redacted>* bashing and get back on topic.

I think that is the topic. Unless I completely misread the OP.

Though, I get what you are saying. I think this would be a perfectly relavent thread, if the name of the orginazation in question, along with geological references, were redacted, as indicated above. As cooler heads have mentioned, we, as a global community, should be discussing the behaviors involved, rather than the individuals involved. Those behaviors were, in my opinion, intolerable.

 

The behavior is indeed the issue here. I don't know the name of the organization and know none of those involved but its the " its my ball and I'm going to go home and take it with me " approach....I think the existing caches should remain, period. I can at least understand TPTB position that in doing so we may win the moral high ground but lose everything else ( the park for geocaching ).....I'm guessing, though, in a case of hardball that land manager is going to want caches in that park.

 

You're not going to lose the park for Geocaching when the land manager is a 3,300 find Geocacher. Trust me on that one.

 

I don't think she technically would be the considered land manager. I'd reserve that title for the park superintendent or the NJ DEP, not a park employee. If the superintendent or the DEP decided no geocaches tomorrow, there is little that this 3,300 find geocacher could do about it.

Edited November 30, 2013 by briansnat

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I am so glad we do not have a formal organization like this in Rhode Island.

I've been around a while and have seen many geocaching organizations. My observation is that increasing the level of structure increases the level of drama in a directly proportional manner. The very loosely knit organizations (and communication mechanisms) have the least interpersonal conflict because the control oriented individuals can be easily ignored.

Having worked for an international fraternal organization I agree wholeheartedly. Structured organizations need strong bylaws otherwise members have no recourse for leadership's wrong doing.

 

There's always the mass exodus approach.

[Mr.Yuck]

How about we stop the <redacted>* bashing and get back on topic.

I think that is the topic. Unless I completely misread the OP.

Though, I get what you are saying. I think this would be a perfectly relavent thread, if the name of the orginazation in question, along with geological references, were redacted, as indicated above. As cooler heads have mentioned, we, as a global community, should be discussing the behaviors involved, rather than the individuals involved. Those behaviors were, in my opinion, intolerable.

 

The behavior is indeed the issue here. I don't know the name of the organization and know none of those involved but its the " its my ball and I'm going to go home and take it with me " approach....I think the existing caches should remain, period. I can at least understand TPTB position that in doing so we may win the moral high ground but lose everything else ( the park for geocaching ).....I'm guessing, though, in a case of hardball that land manager is going to want caches in that park.

 

You're not going to lose the park for Geocaching when the land manager is a 3,300 find Geocacher. Trust me on that one.

 

I don't think she technically would be the considered land manager. I'd reserve that title for the park superintendent or the NJ DEP, not a park employee. If the superintendent or the DEP decided no geocaches tomorrow, there is little that this 3,300 find geocacher could do about it.

 

My bad, I did not explain myself properly. Not that that has never happened before. Certainly the Park Supertendent or DEP could decide on no Geocaches in the future. Why, I have no idea, but it could happen.

[+Mudfrog]

I am so glad we do not have a formal organization like this in Rhode Island.

I've been around a while and have seen many geocaching organizations. My observation is that increasing the level of structure increases the level of drama in a directly proportional manner. The very loosely knit organizations (and communication mechanisms) have the least interpersonal conflict because the control oriented individuals can be easily ignored.

 

I am seeing this happen with our little group. I realize that business has to take place at times, especially since we host an annual event, but i dislike the fact that we're sometimes too formal. The drama has definitely become more prevalent since the group has become larger.

 

For me, Geocaching is supposed to be fun but some people just take it too seriously these days.

[+brian b]

I don't think she technically would be the considered land manager. I'd reserve that title for the park superintendent or the NJ DEP, not a park employee. If the superintendent or the DEP decided no geocaches tomorrow, there is little that this 3,300 find geocacher could do about it.

 

And that, Brian, is part of the problem. When Rangr Lynn (and Rangr Dave) addressed both WNC and myself, she identified herself as such, giving them impression that she was the end all in the discussion. Everyone is quick to jump on NNJC, and while the justification might be real, the blame extends elsewhere as well.

[+Team Bayberry]

If you look at other states' geocaching policies in state parks it is on a permit system, I know PA and NY along with several others have systems where you have to get permission from the state parks to place a cache, even then the placement is not permanent. You essentially lease a spot in the woods to place a cache for a limited time once that time is up you have to reapply and if the park feels like the cache is disrupting the ecosystem by creating a geotrail or disturbing a rock wall or something along those lines you have to remove it. The cache really isn't "yours", it's on state property therefore allowed by the state. If you do not remove it you are fined for littering. Look at maps of state parks in NJ and they are clustered with caches, look at other states and their parks, not nearly as many caches. There has been talk about NJ implementing the same sort of cache restrictions, even Morris County Parks at one time wanted to limit caches, even eliminate them altogether.

 

<snip>

NJ has had a pretty open policy with caching, but I can see in the near future how state parks will be controlled and caches will be limited. My suggestion is that we work with them not against them, keep in mind, they have every right to say no caching whatsoever.

 

Wow. Just...wow. Is the situation in North Jersey really so different than the situation down here in South Jersey?

 

We do work with our land managers. We've been doing that from the beginning. If a cache is seen as a problem, it will be removed. The land managers know how to contact South Jersey Geocachers. We've worked with them on clean-ups, on trail maintenance, and on geocaching demonstrations.

 

Someone said that maybe caches should be removed after a set number of years, to attract people back to the "park" (We don't consider our forests to be "parks"... but that's just us.) In fact, caches often are removed by the CO after a few years, and replaced with new ones. New caches are also being introduced to places that they've not visited before. We've had land managers talk about which caches they especially like, and why. It's been win-win since the start of geocaching.

The power trail was created by NNJC's pseudonym account:

The account states:

"The mission of the Northern New Jersey Cachers (NNJC), is a non-profit geocaching organization, and one of the most respected geocaching organizations in the country, is to partner with New Jersey land officials across the state to develop new Quality Geotrail programs."

 

"New Jersey Geocaching" ? Gosh, the whole state? It doesn't seem all that long ago that they fought us piney hicks about creating a state-wide caching club. That's why there isn't one - but there are 5 regional clubs... and they are only one of them.

 

John Neale ought to stick to his own end of the state. There's never been a lot of respect for NNJC down here, and much, much less now.

[+hallycat]

Circling back to the first post in this thread, the objective was to raise awareness of a situation, an objective that has clearly been met. Maybe it's time for us to grab our go bags and get outside and find something.

 

Yeah good idea. This was on my menu today. Some of these prolific posters need to grab their gps and get AWAY from their computer.

[Mr.Yuck]

Circling back to the first post in this thread, the objective was to raise awareness of a situation, an objective that has clearly been met. Maybe it's time for us to grab our go bags and get outside and find something.

 

Yeah good idea. This was on my menu today. Some of these prolific posters need to grab their gps and get AWAY from their computer.

 

Both a "you have no horse in this race", and a "prolific posters need to get away from their computer" blast all in one day. Nice. I actually tried that today, but I had a 5" or so of snow on the ground DNF.

[+lakelady]

Found two caches today. Neither was part of a geotrail.

[+hydnsek]

I am so glad we do not have a formal organization like this in Rhode Island.

I've been around a while and have seen many geocaching organizations. My observation is that increasing the level of structure increases the level of drama in a directly proportional manner. The very loosely knit organizations (and communication mechanisms) have the least interpersonal conflict because the control oriented individuals can be easily ignored.

 

I am seeing this happen with our little group. I realize that business has to take place at times, especially since we host an annual event, but i dislike the fact that we're sometimes too formal. The drama has definitely become more prevalent since the group has become larger.

 

For me, Geocaching is supposed to be fun but some people just take it too seriously these days.

Just ran across this thread and saw this string of comments. Wow. I guess we do things differently out west. Washington State has a single statewide geocaching organization (WSGA) which has been around for 11 years, and is stronger than ever. We have seven chapters and 350+ members across the state (and WA is larger than New Jersey, RI, and some others mentioned). We have bylaws (important to the success of an ongoing org), officers, and all that jazz. We celebrated our 10th anniversary in 2012 with multiple parties, a WSGA cache-art series (38 club members participated), and a founder's celebration (Bryan and Moun10Bike are among our founders).

 

WSGA represents cachers and caching across the state with parks and other groups. We have a Park Liaison Program that works with land managers at all levels to support geocaching and address issues. WSGA is the officially designated geocaching group in the WA State Parks geocaching directive, and we are currently partnering with them on a hugely successful State Parks GeoTour. We also do the annual Going APE mega-event, an annual summer campout, CITOs and chapter events, the yearly Washington geocoin, and a wide variety of other activities across the state. We also do outreach with noncaching groups that want to learn more about geocaching.

 

Sometimes there's a bit of drama, cos we're all human, and the club did have a rocky first few years, but a formal structure and guidance from (mostly) level-headed folks has helped WSGA stay on track and greatly advance geocaching in Washington State, esp in the past 3-4 years.

 

Yes, our group has structure (and dues!), but a casual cluster of cachers would not have the clout that WSGA does with the State Parks and other groups that look to us for guidance and partnership as the geocaching org of record.

 

And, contrary to some comments here, we have found that loosely knit groups have more interpersonal conflict because there are no boundaries, unified purpose, or leadership.

Edited December 1, 2013 by hydnsek

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

level-headed folks has helped WSGA stay on track and greatly advance geocaching in Washington State, esp in the past 3-4 years.

That's pretty subjective. What does that mean to you?

[+giddeanx]

I am so glad we do not have a formal organization like this in Rhode Island.

I've been around a while and have seen many geocaching organizations. My observation is that increasing the level of structure increases the level of drama in a directly proportional manner. The very loosely knit organizations (and communication mechanisms) have the least interpersonal conflict because the control oriented individuals can be easily ignored.

Having worked for an international fraternal organization I agree wholeheartedly. Structured organizations need strong bylaws otherwise members have no recourse for leadership's wrong doing.

 

There's always the mass exodus approach.

That is a consequence of having no recourse.

[+Fusilli Jerry]

I'm trying to see both sides of this story and i know some of the players on both sides too.

 

It's doubly sad that the archived caches were named for, and in a sense were gifts for, some of the great cache hiders in the region. I was there during the CTTS when these caches were published and enjoyed the genuine camaraderie felt among all the attendees of the event.

 

I hope lessons can be learned from this disagreement and in the long term both sides can reconcile.

 

PS: I've seen my share of ammo cans and when WNC says one of the containers was a 'mortar sized ammo can' he's not kidding. One of the greatest cache containers i've seen.

[+hydnsek]

level-headed folks has helped WSGA stay on track and greatly advance geocaching in Washington State, esp in the past 3-4 years.

That's pretty subjective. What does that mean to you?

It means that geocachers in WA State now have greatly expanded caching opportunities and more recreational activities. All park systems in WA State - city, county, state, federal - now allow geocaching, thanks to WSGA's partnerships through our Park Liaison Program (created in 2010), in some cases reversing long-standing bans or restrictions. (For example, my work with North Cascades NP led to it becoming the first western national park to allow physical geocaches.) Cachers have more caching activities to enjoy throughout the state, from local gatherings and CITOs to our annual campout and Going Ape mega-event (created in 2010). WSGA also creates annual coins, pathtags, and other swag, for those who enjoy the bling. I could go on...but hopefully you get the idea.

 

P.S. Regarding the OP - Neither WSGA nor our park partners has ever asked cache owners to archive geocaches that adhere to guidelines and are in good shape. We consider that a nonstarter, even with parks who want to introduce their own caching programs. Specific example: When we were planning the current WA State Parks GeoTour, both parties (parks and WSGA) agreed that preexisting caches would take precedence when it came to choosing locations, and in fact, we eliminated two parks from the GeoTour because they had a geocache and there wasn't room for the park to place one.

Edited December 1, 2013 by hydnsek

[+giddeanx]

I was curious about the archived caches. Somewhere in this thread it said they were placed for the seventh iteration of an event. Were the caches originally placed on the organizations request or were they placed independently? I was wondering if the organization thought they had some ownership since they were caches from an old event. Just trying to understand the nuance of it.

[4wheelin_fool]

How about we stop the <redacted>* bashing and get back on topic.

I think that is the topic. Unless I completely misread the OP.

Though, I get what you are saying. I think this would be a perfectly relavent thread, if the name of the orginazation in question, along with geological references, were redacted, as indicated above. As cooler heads have mentioned, we, as a global community, should be discussing the behaviors involved, rather than the individuals involved. Those behaviors were, in my opinion, intolerable.

 

The behavior is indeed the issue here. I don't know the name of the organization and know none of those involved but its the " its my ball and I'm going to go home and take it with me " approach....I think the existing caches should remain, period. I can at least understand TPTB position that in doing so we may win the moral high ground but lose everything else ( the park for geocaching ).....I'm guessing, though, in a case of hardball that land manager is going to want caches in that park.

 

You're not going to lose the park for Geocaching when the land manager is a 3,300 find Geocacher. Trust me on that one.

 

I'd rather see a park have no caches at all, rather than ones placed for someone's personal agenda, and at the expense of stepping on the toes of others. If they get published, they most certainly will be against the agenda guideline. Some agendas are promoted simply by the verbiage on a cache page. These are past the promotion stage, nearly at full execution. If someone wants to archive and redo their own hides every year for an event, (as has been done here in the past) that's on them. This takes it a bit further unnecessarily. Things done successfully on a small scale often get repeated on a larger one.

 

I still fail to understand how the 4 caches at Griggstown had to be archived to make way for 37. The previous hides were "unauthorized" , but the land manager wanted more? Seems like a much bigger strain on the environment, multiplied by nine, plus the original ones had full permission with a park ranger collaborating on the page write up. The land manager wanted to have "more control", although the sock account that hid them was created by NNJC? I don't think everyone is on the level here.

Edited December 1, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[Clan Riffster]

I don't think she technically would be the considered land manager.

Speaking locally, it's certainly possible. Something I've seen is for a government entity to designate someone fairly low on the totem pole to handle what the upper brass might view as a tedious chore. This is especially true when the brass knows there is someone in the lower eschelon who not only knows a considerable amount about the subject matter, but has sufficient inner motivation to do the job.

 

The Little Big Econ and Charles H Bronson State Forest are good examples of this phenominum. None of the brass wanted to deal with issuing cache permits, nor did the staff. They designated their secretary as the "Land Manager", for cache permit issuing purposes. She wasn't thrilled with the added work, and the permit process was getting bogged down. Since I am a registered volunteer with those forests, I volunteered for the job. The brass consented, and, even though I'm not a paid employee of the Florida Forestry Service, I am the "Land Manager", where cache permits are involved.

 

Maybe that's how that other geocacher got the title?

 

So long as the brass think their designee is doing a good job, they will continue in their role as "Land Manager", where this hobby is concerned. For things to change, I suspect that folks would need to convince the brass that the designee was no longer doing an adequate job.

[Clan Riffster]

Circling back to the first post in this thread, the objective was to raise awareness of a situation, an objective that has clearly been met. Maybe it's time for us to grab our go bags and get outside and find something.

 

Yeah good idea. This was on my menu today. Some of these prolific posters need to grab their gps and get AWAY from their computer.

 

Both a "you have no horse in this race", and a "prolific posters need to get away from their computer" blast all in one day. Nice. I actually tried that today, but I had a 5" or so of snow on the ground DNF.

When the only argument one can make is, essentially, "Shut up and go away! Your comments make me uncomfortable", the lameness level has gone so low that they barely rate a response. I see the "You don't belong in this discussion" silliness as the moral equivalent of pointing out bad grammar.

[+cheech gang]

Circling back to the first post in this thread, the objective was to raise awareness of a situation, an objective that has clearly been met. Maybe it's time for us to grab our go bags and get outside and find something.

 

Yeah good idea. This was on my menu today. Some of these prolific posters need to grab their gps and get AWAY from their computer.

 

Both a "you have no horse in this race", and a "prolific posters need to get away from their computer" blast all in one day. Nice. I actually tried that today, but I had a 5" or so of snow on the ground DNF.

When the only argument one can make is, essentially, "Shut up and go away! Your comments make me uncomfortable", the lameness level has gone so low that they barely rate a response. I see the "You don't belong in this discussion" silliness as the moral equivalent of pointing out bad grammar.

 

I find it ironic that a thread whose partial theme hints at the perils of stifling open discussions on Facebook has drifted into recommendations of stifling discourse here as well.

[Clan Riffster]

I think the existing caches should remain, period.

Yup. If the persons involved in this travesty ever recognize their inappropriate behavior, and decide to "make things right", getting those archived caches restored is the absolute minimum which must happen. Without this occurring, any offered apologies are naught but noise, smoke and mirrors, intended to obfuscate.

[+briansnat]

I don't think she technically would be the considered land manager.

Speaking locally, it's certainly possible. Something I've seen is for a government entity to designate someone fairly low on the totem pole to handle what the upper brass might view as a tedious chore. This is especially true when the brass knows there is someone in the lower eschelon who not only knows a considerable amount about the subject matter, but has sufficient inner motivation to do the job.

 

The Little Big Econ and Charles H Bronson State Forest are good examples of this phenominum. None of the brass wanted to deal with issuing cache permits, nor did the staff. They designated their secretary as the "Land Manager", for cache permit issuing purposes. She wasn't thrilled with the added work, and the permit process was getting bogged down. Since I am a registered volunteer with those forests, I volunteered for the job. The brass consented, and, even though I'm not a paid employee of the Florida Forestry Service, I am the "Land Manager", where cache permits are involved.

 

Maybe that's how that other geocacher got the title?

 

So long as the brass think their designee is doing a good job, they will continue in their role as "Land Manager", where this hobby is concerned. For things to change, I suspect that folks would need to convince the brass that the designee was no longer doing an adequate job.

 

My definition of land manager is the person who has the authority to set park policy, not the person who has the clerical task of issuing permits. In some cases they can be the same. It's possible that that in this case the park superintendent delegated the management of all things geocaching to the ranger involved. Maybe that is the case because I seriously doubt the park superintendent was the one who was hot to clear the way for this power trail in time for our geocaching event.

[+CondorTrax]

An open letter to NNJC Board, Trustees and Members. I'd post this on that site but I've been banished.

 

1. No one can argue that Old Navy and his assembled team have not done a great job of explaining, educating and expanding the understanding of Geocaching. This has been going on since I've been caching (2005)

 

2. As an individual cacher, Old Navy has created some of the most creative, well thought-out and entertaining caches, adventures and experiences.

 

3. The other board members of NNJC, who I admit not to know, have also published quality caches.

 

Unfortunately, pushing their agenda created a situation where Old Navy and other NNJC members thought it beneficial to the caching community that their vision was best, at the expense of existing caches. Having Ranger Lynn act as cacher and Park Admin accelerated their tactic. What this eventually created was a back-lash - as we're now witnessing. Yes, short sighted as their goal appears, I still believe they were attempting to do the right "thing" but in the wrong way.

 

I think what really made this situation worse was the deleting of the Groundspeak thread authored by WeatherNowCast and posted on the NNJC Facebook page. An even worse situation was created, with the subsequent explanation and defense of their position offered by NNJC President without the benefit of NNJC members understanding what he was rebutting.

 

Banning members from their page is certainly in their right, but the manner in which it was done demonstrated a certain desperation.

 

All of this could have been avoided if a few things, I believe, had been kept in mind:

1. NNJC as a board should have been kept aware of what Old Navy and Ranger Lynn were contemplating. I'm sure someone would have offered a "what if" or "that doesn't sound right" opinion.

 

2.Those cachers who had their caches targeted for elimination by Old Navy and Ranger Lynn should have been given the right of refusal. Those that did refuse or ignore, received an "official" note from KVSP of their force-archiving. It was this heavy handed approach, which has been characterized as Geo-bullying and conflict of interest, which ultimately fueled this fire. Griggstown was a similar scenario with slight differences in the details.

 

3.Targeted caches and new ones could have been placed within a short distance of one another maintaining Geo-tranquility. In working with their local reviewers, an exception could have been worked out where all caches could have co-existed.

 

4.Banning members for posting or expressing their views is never a good sign or direction. Especially when it was simply informative. Old Navy's rebuttal would have made sense and a discussion could have occurred. If it got personal or heated, an objective moderator could have then stepped in to cool the situation. Ultimately, the conversation was purged even though it had remained civil.

 

4. Event caches, by definition, are get-togethers. The rules stipulate that caches placed for the purpose of attracting cachers to the event are not permitted. If this rule had been maintained, particularly in an area where many caches exist, there wouldn't be:

a ) frenzy to create new ones for the event;

b) attempt to coerce archiving of existing caches;

c) holding the reviewer accountable to only publish the day of the event (and subsequent frustration when they're not)

d) ridicule cachers who go on a separate path;

e) create a massive group FTF.

 

5. Complete transparency without hidden agendas. If you're asking someone to eliminate their cache, be up front and honest. Do not hide behind an agenda, Park Admin. or meeting you may have had with a township. Publish your minutes on the FB page and NNJC Web site. Make it a team communication and not just emanating from the President. Allow your membership to agree, disagree and offer dissent without the fear of ridicule or banishment. Offer the idea up to the community.

 

I repeat: No one doubts the excellent work NNJC has done. What's in doubt is what they did and the negative impact it's created locally and within the geocaching community.

 

No doubt they will regroup and collectively determine what needs to be done to bring back the label "one of the most respected geocaching organizations in the country"

 

I ask of Old Navy and his team a few simple things:

 

1. Not defend this policy or tactic of force-archiving but to establish a working model where NNJC will work jointly and collaboratively with the cacher and reviewer (see points 2 and 3 above)

 

2. Reinstate those members who were banished from the NNJC FB site and remove any semblance of censorship. Allow open communication without the fear of retribution

 

3. If possible, working with the reviewer, allow the caches that were force-archived to be re-published and issue an apology for the manner in which NNJC's vision was communicated.

 

There is no need to have separate groups, agendas, Facebook pages, etc. There is a need for openness, collaboration, and communication

 

We will never agree on everything but to try to come to an understanding without the worry of one single-input agenda being "the best" is an attainable goal.

Edited December 1, 2013 by CondorTrax

[+weathernowcast]

Agree

[+Traditional Bill]

How about we stop the <redacted>* bashing and get back on topic.

I think that is the topic. Unless I completely misread the OP.

Though, I get what you are saying. I think this would be a perfectly relavent thread, if the name of the orginazation in question, along with geological references, were redacted, as indicated above. As cooler heads have mentioned, we, as a global community, should be discussing the behaviors involved, rather than the individuals involved. Those behaviors were, in my opinion, intolerable.

 

The behavior is indeed the issue here. I don't know the name of the organization and know none of those involved but its the " its my ball and I'm going to go home and take it with me " approach....I think the existing caches should remain, period. I can at least understand TPTB position that in doing so we may win the moral high ground but lose everything else ( the park for geocaching ).....I'm guessing, though, in a case of hardball that land manager is going to want caches in that park.

 

You're not going to lose the park for Geocaching when the land manager is a 3,300 find Geocacher. Trust me on that one.

 

I don't think she technically would be the considered land manager. I'd reserve that title for the park superintendent or the NJ DEP, not a park employee. If the superintendent or the DEP decided no geocaches tomorrow, there is little that this 3,300 find geocacher could do about it.

 

She certainly represents herself as the land manager. Maybe somebody should discuss this issue with the ACTUAL land manager to see if they've even been made aware of what their employee and/or employees are representing themselves as.

[+weathernowcast]

An open letter to NNJC Board, Trustees and Members. I'd post this on that site but I've been banished.

 

1. No one can argue that Old Navy and his assembled team have not done a great job of explaining, educating and expanding the understanding of Geocaching. This has been going on since I've been caching (2005)

 

2. As an individual cacher, Old Navy has created some of the most creative, well thought-out and entertaining caches, adventures and experiences.

 

3. The other board members of NNJC, who I admit not to know, have also published quality caches.

 

Unfortunately, pushing their agenda created a situation where Old Navy and other NNJC members thought it beneficial to the caching community that their vision was best, at the expense of existing caches. Having Ranger Lynn act as cacher and Park Admin accelerated their tactic. What this eventually created was a back-lash - as we're now witnessing. Yes, short sighted as their goal appears, I still believe they were attempting to do the right "thing" but in the wrong way.

 

I think what really made this situation worse was the deleting of the Groundspeak thread authored by WeatherNowCast and posted on the NNJC Facebook page. An even worse situation was created, with the subsequent explanation and defense of their position offered by NNJC President without the benefit of NNJC members understanding what he was rebutting.

 

Banning members from their page is certainly in their right, but the manner in which it was done demonstrated a certain desperation.

 

All of this could have been avoided if a few things, I believe, had been kept in mind:

1. NNJC as a board should have been kept aware of what Old Navy and Ranger Lynn were contemplating. I'm sure someone would have offered a "what if" or "that doesn't sound right" opinion.

 

2.Those cachers who had their caches targeted for elimination by Old Navy and Ranger Lynn should have been given the right of refusal. Those that did refuse or ignore, received an "official" note from KVSP of their force-archiving. It was this heavy handed approach, which has been characterized as Geo-bullying and conflict of interest, which ultimately fueled this fire. Griggstown was a similar scenario with slight differences in the details.

 

3.Targeted caches and new ones could have been placed within a short distance of one another maintaining Geo-tranquility. In working with their local reviewers, an exception could have been worked out where all caches could have co-existed.

 

4.Banning members for posting or expressing their views is never a good sign or direction. Especially when it was simply informative. Old Navy's rebuttal would have made sense and a discussion could have occurred. If it got personal or heated, an objective moderator could have then stepped in to cool the situation. Ultimately, the conversation was purged even though it had remained civil.

 

4. Event caches, by definition, are get-togethers. The rules stipulate that caches placed for the purpose of attracting cachers to the event are not permitted. If this rule had been maintained, particularly in an area where many caches exist, there wouldn't be:

a ) frenzy to create new ones for the event;

b) attempt to coerce archiving of existing caches;

c) holding the reviewer accountable to only publish the day of the event (and subsequent frustration when they're not)

d) ridicule cachers who go on a separate path;

e) create a massive group FTF.

 

5. Complete transparency without hidden agendas. If you're asking someone to eliminate their cache, be up front and honest. Do not hide behind an agenda, Park Admin. or meeting you may have had with a township. Publish your minutes on the FB page and NNJC Web site. Make it a team communication and not just emanating from the President. Allow your membership to agree, disagree and offer dissent without the fear of ridicule or banishment. Offer the idea up to the community.

 

I repeat: No one doubts the excellent work NNJC has done. What's in doubt is what they did and the negative impact it's created locally and within the geocaching community.

 

No doubt they will regroup and collectively determine what needs to be done to bring back the label "one of the most respected geocaching organizations in the country"

 

I ask of Old Navy and his team a few simple things:

 

1. Not defend this policy or tactic of force-archiving but to establish a working model where NNJC will work jointly and collaboratively with the cacher and reviewer (see points 2 and 3 above)

 

2. Reinstate those members who were banished from the NNJC FB site and remove any semblance of censorship. Allow open communication without the fear of retribution

 

3. If possible, working with the reviewer, allow the caches that were force-archived to be re-published and issue an apology for the manner in which NNJC's vision was communicated.

 

There is no need to have separate groups, agendas, Facebook pages, etc. There is a need for openness, collaboration, and communication

 

We will never agree on everything but to try to come to an understanding without the worry of one single-input agenda being "the best" is an attainable goal.

 

I don't need a personal apology. And I really don't need to have the caches reactivated as they may have already been picked up by friends. I think we should just place nice, now and in the future, and respect each other as geocachers. Life is too short to be mean to each other.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I guess I'll never understand the concept of 'disposable' caches. Yeah, I know there are a lot of cachers who hide caches and never maintain them. Three months is all that GS requires. I hide my caches to last as long as possible. They may not get found too often, but they are still there.

Others seems to recycle caches about every two years. Most of the locals have found it. Archive and hide new ones. Always seemed a bit strange to me. I've enjoyed that park. Do I really want to go back and seek new ones?

Strange enough when one hosts another event at a site. Archive all the old ones, and put out new ones. Were the old ones not special? I guess not. See Camp Jefferson. Camping event! Hide lots of caches. Okay. Another camping event two years later. Archive all of the event owners caches, and hide a new set. They weren't good enough to be permanent caches? Disposable? Or is it all about the numbers?

That seems to happen a lot with a certain CO's caches. Event or not. Maintenance does not seem to be important either.

Ah. I don't understand this concept. I guess if one wants to archive all of one's caches in an area to hide new ones, that is the CO's prerogative. (Though I will never understand it.) But deciding that other CO's caches have passed their shelf date and need to be archived for a new power trail series to coincide with an event? Reprehensible!

But, do you know what I find worse? (And I was not aware of this.) A local cacher worked with many cachers to set out three Checkpoint Challenge series. North, Central and South Jersey. A series of 26 caches each (one for each letter of the alphabet.) Find all 26, and go for the final. (Great series! We have done the NJCC and the CJCC series. They were great!) CO for the series has left the state. Puppet account has taken over the finals. "Oh. This interferes with our Griggstown Power Trail. To perdition with the 27 COs who worked to make this series! It's in our way!"

[+briansnat]

I guess I'll never understand the concept of 'disposable' caches. Yeah, I know there are a lot of cachers who hide caches and never maintain them. Three months is all that GS requires. I hide my caches to last as long as possible. They may not get found too often, but they are still there.

Others seems to recycle caches about every two years. Most of the locals have found it. Archive and hide new ones. Always seemed a bit strange to me. I've enjoyed that park. Do I really want to go back and seek new ones?

Strange enough when one hosts another event at a site. Archive all the old ones, and put out new ones. Were the old ones not special? I guess not. See Camp Jefferson. Camping event! Hide lots of caches. Okay. Another camping event two years later. Archive all of the event owners caches, and hide a new set. They weren't good enough to be permanent caches? Disposable? Or is it all about the numbers?

That seems to happen a lot with a certain CO's caches. Event or not. Maintenance does not seem to be important either.

Ah. I don't understand this concept. I guess if one wants to archive all of one's caches in an area to hide new ones, that is the CO's prerogative. (Though I will never understand it.) But deciding that other CO's caches have passed their shelf date and need to be archived for a new power trail series to coincide with an event? Reprehensible!

But, do you know what I find worse? (And I was not aware of this.) A local cacher worked with many cachers to set out three Checkpoint Challenge series. North, Central and South Jersey. A series of 26 caches each (one for each letter of the alphabet.) Find all 26, and go for the final. (Great series! We have done the NJCC and the CJCC series. They were great!) CO for the series has left the state. Puppet account has taken over the finals. "Oh. This interferes with our Griggstown Power Trail. To perdition with the 27 COs who worked to make this series! It's in our way!"

 

One word, numbers. Just another example of how the obsession with the almighty +1 is destroying this game.

Edited December 2, 2013 by briansnat

[Mr.Yuck]

How about we stop the <redacted>* bashing and get back on topic.

I think that is the topic. Unless I completely misread the OP.

Though, I get what you are saying. I think this would be a perfectly relavent thread, if the name of the orginazation in question, along with geological references, were redacted, as indicated above. As cooler heads have mentioned, we, as a global community, should be discussing the behaviors involved, rather than the individuals involved. Those behaviors were, in my opinion, intolerable.

 

The behavior is indeed the issue here. I don't know the name of the organization and know none of those involved but its the " its my ball and I'm going to go home and take it with me " approach....I think the existing caches should remain, period. I can at least understand TPTB position that in doing so we may win the moral high ground but lose everything else ( the park for geocaching ).....I'm guessing, though, in a case of hardball that land manager is going to want caches in that park.

 

You're not going to lose the park for Geocaching when the land manager is a 3,300 find Geocacher. Trust me on that one.

 

I don't think she technically would be the considered land manager. I'd reserve that title for the park superintendent or the NJ DEP, not a park employee. If the superintendent or the DEP decided no geocaches tomorrow, there is little that this 3,300 find geocacher could do about it.

 

She certainly represents herself as the land manager. Maybe somebody should discuss this issue with the ACTUAL land manager to see if they've even been made aware of what their employee and/or employees are representing themselves as.

 

I've actually learned quite a bit about "land managers" here. For example, who knew Clan Riffster was a "land manager". By the way, I'm holding up my fingers making quotes like Dr. Evil does when he says "Laser".

 

Yeah, there's always someone you can go over the head off in a bureaucracy type situation. Wouldn't be prudent here. I suppose I am guilty of piling on this "laser" "land manager" here. But I see the posts have taken on a much more conciliatory tone, and I will join in on that.

[Mr.Yuck]

Addendum to my last post. I'm not so sure a non-Geocaching Park manager supervisor would understand the breach of Geocaching etiquette, nor the "about the numbers" mentality evident in the early stages of the NNJC Geotrail initiative. They certainly did saturate that park in Griggstown. True, they're not film canisters tossed into the desert every 528 feet, but I can't help but feel an all about the numbers vibe here.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I guess I'll never understand the concept of 'disposable' caches. Yeah, I know there are a lot of cachers who hide caches and never maintain them. Three months is all that GS requires. I hide my caches to last as long as possible. They may not get found too often, but they are still there.

Others seems to recycle caches about every two years. Most of the locals have found it. Archive and hide new ones. Always seemed a bit strange to me. I've enjoyed that park. Do I really want to go back and seek new ones?

 

One word, numbers. Just another example of how the obsession with the almighty +1 is destroying this game.

 

I have to disagree. It's not about the numbers. It's about locals finding all the caches and getting bored so someone puts out new caches for them to find. Most people here are looking for a nice hike and a bit of fun, but don't care exactly what their find count says.

[+Mudfrog]

I guess I'll never understand the concept of 'disposable' caches. Yeah, I know there are a lot of cachers who hide caches and never maintain them. Three months is all that GS requires. I hide my caches to last as long as possible. They may not get found too often, but they are still there.

Others seems to recycle caches about every two years. Most of the locals have found it. Archive and hide new ones. Always seemed a bit strange to me. I've enjoyed that park. Do I really want to go back and seek new ones?

 

One word, numbers. Just another example of how the obsession with the almighty +1 is destroying this game.

 

I have to disagree. It's not about the numbers. It's about locals finding all the caches and getting bored so someone puts out new caches for them to find. Most people here are looking for a nice hike and a bit of fun, but don't care exactly what their find count says.

 

Nah, i have to agree with Briansnat. We used to go to events with aniticipation of seeing old friends, meeting new, and visting with like minded people. Things have changed over time with cachers becoming more interested in smiley count than anything else. These caches are put out as an effort to entice more cachers to attend the event. This ups the number count for both the event holder and the finders of those caches.

[+CondorTrax]

I guess I'll never understand the concept of 'disposable' caches. Yeah, I know there are a lot of cachers who hide caches and never maintain them. Three months is all that GS requires. I hide my caches to last as long as possible. They may not get found too often, but they are still there.

Others seems to recycle caches about every two years. Most of the locals have found it. Archive and hide new ones. Always seemed a bit strange to me. I've enjoyed that park. Do I really want to go back and seek new ones?

 

One word, numbers. Just another example of how the obsession with the almighty +1 is destroying this game.

 

I have to disagree. It's not about the numbers. It's about locals finding all the caches and getting bored so someone puts out new caches for them to find. Most people here are looking for a nice hike and a bit of fun, but don't care exactly what their find count says.

 

Nah, i have to agree with Briansnat. We used to go to events with aniticipation of seeing old friends, meeting new, and visting with like minded people. Things have changed over time with cachers becoming more interested in smiley count than anything else. These caches are put out as an effort to entice more cachers to attend the event. This ups the number count for both the event holder and the finders of those caches.

I think this is where the Reviewer community will probably start taking a closer look at cache requests that must be published by a certain date. If they correlate the date of publication and day of event it'll be a simple conclusion. Event caches by GS rules "should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together geocachers for an organized geocache search." It's a matter of interpretation as to motive, but if you're having an event and 30 caches must be published on that date and in close proximity to the event, well.....

 

Last CTTS I went to I skipped the group hike and had a great time at the Krough's catching up with geo-friends I hadn't seen for a while. Was a very rewarding 1 cache for the day.

Edited December 2, 2013 by CondorTrax

[+weathernowcast]

How about we stop the <redacted>* bashing and get back on topic.

I think that is the topic. Unless I completely misread the OP.

Though, I get what you are saying. I think this would be a perfectly relavent thread, if the name of the orginazation in question, along with geological references, were redacted, as indicated above. As cooler heads have mentioned, we, as a global community, should be discussing the behaviors involved, rather than the individuals involved. Those behaviors were, in my opinion, intolerable.

 

The behavior is indeed the issue here. I don't know the name of the organization and know none of those involved but its the " its my ball and I'm going to go home and take it with me " approach....I think the existing caches should remain, period. I can at least understand TPTB position that in doing so we may win the moral high ground but lose everything else ( the park for geocaching ).....I'm guessing, though, in a case of hardball that land manager is going to want caches in that park.

 

You're not going to lose the park for Geocaching when the land manager is a 3,300 find Geocacher. Trust me on that one.

 

I don't think she technically would be the considered land manager. I'd reserve that title for the park superintendent or the NJ DEP, not a park employee. If the superintendent or the DEP decided no geocaches tomorrow, there is little that this 3,300 find geocacher could do about it.

 

Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

Log Date: 11/26/2013

First off lets remember that this is indeed a game, one with over 12,000 game pieces throughout this state alone. If a few have to be archived so that others may be placed to educate a cacher on the historical, environmental, or geological significance of an area so be it. I am all for quality over quantity.

 

Secondly, the "someone" that you speak of is one of the land managers for this park. The request is being made so that (as stated in the request) an official interpretive geo-trail can be installed in the park. The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?

 

On a personal note, this archive request is being made by someone that has made great contributions to the sport of geocaching, through hours of outreach, township meetings, planning and holding events, and personally conducting monthly introduction to geocaching classes where she has introduced both individuals and families to caching. So understand that this archive request was made with the pure intent of creating a greater caching experience for all.

[+CondorTrax]

I do hope Reviewers are reading these posts. I've said it before, but why couldn't these cachers/Land Managers simply collaborate with experienced and seasoned cachers. Amazed at the arrogance.

[+wmpastor]

People make mistakes, this isn't the US government here, these are our friends and caching companions.

CR, this is not your community nor your friends. Get over yourself, you are acting like you have a horse in this race.

I think that the point has been made that we all have a horse in this race, because forced archiving could happen anywhere. So it is even better when those who don't directly have a horse in the race stand up and say, "Hey, this is heavy-handed. Big-wigs wearing two hats are throwing their weight around, forcing out existing caches to make way for caches of their own choosing. You or I could be next."

 

Agree or disagree, but it's crucial to have a robust debate about these policy issues.

[+mblatch]

What I find to be the most intolerable aspect of this situation is the local organization has apparently silenced all dissent within the group. Several members have had their posting privileges removed and eventually their membership revoked on the FB page. Their crime, simply posting links to this discussion forum. All posts to the FB page now must be approved by an administrator, which one week ago used to number about 12....now there are 2.

 

In response to this, I have created another FB page where members of the local group have been free to air the dirty laundry uncensored, and we have had some interesting, yet productive conversations on there. I think rather than circling the wagons and implementing Orwellian controls on communication, the local organization would have been much better off engaging the dissenting voices. Someone said in a previous post that the president had been notified but had not posed the official group response. Even if a response is posted, I'm not sure I would give it much credence. It will be the response of 2 or 3 individuals since the voice of the group has effectively been silenced and the officers involved have barricaded themselves in behind the firewall.

[+Ambrosia]

How about we stop the <redacted>* bashing and get back on topic.

I think that is the topic. Unless I completely misread the OP.

Though, I get what you are saying. I think this would be a perfectly relavent thread, if the name of the orginazation in question, along with geological references, were redacted, as indicated above. As cooler heads have mentioned, we, as a global community, should be discussing the behaviors involved, rather than the individuals involved. Those behaviors were, in my opinion, intolerable.

 

The behavior is indeed the issue here. I don't know the name of the organization and know none of those involved but its the " its my ball and I'm going to go home and take it with me " approach....I think the existing caches should remain, period. I can at least understand TPTB position that in doing so we may win the moral high ground but lose everything else ( the park for geocaching ).....I'm guessing, though, in a case of hardball that land manager is going to want caches in that park.

 

You're not going to lose the park for Geocaching when the land manager is a 3,300 find Geocacher. Trust me on that one.

 

I don't think she technically would be the considered land manager. I'd reserve that title for the park superintendent or the NJ DEP, not a park employee. If the superintendent or the DEP decided no geocaches tomorrow, there is little that this 3,300 find geocacher could do about it.

 

Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

Log Date: 11/26/2013

First off lets remember that this is indeed a game, one with over 12,000 game pieces throughout this state alone. If a few have to be archived so that others may be placed to educate a cacher on the historical, environmental, or geological significance of an area so be it. I am all for quality over quantity.

 

Secondly, the "someone" that you speak of is one of the land managers for this park. The request is being made so that (as stated in the request) an official interpretive geo-trail can be installed in the park. The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?

 

On a personal note, this archive request is being made by someone that has made great contributions to the sport of geocaching, through hours of outreach, township meetings, planning and holding events, and personally conducting monthly introduction to geocaching classes where she has introduced both individuals and families to caching. So understand that this archive request was made with the pure intent of creating a greater caching experience for all.

 

Oh, boy. Please shoot me if I ever use my geocaching achievements and standing in the community to justify getting somebody else's caches archived.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

 

Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

Log Date: 11/26/2013

First off lets remember that this is indeed a game, one with over 12,000 game pieces throughout this state alone. If a few have to be archived so that others may be placed to educate a cacher on the historical, environmental, or geological significance of an area so be it. I am all for quality over quantity.

 

Secondly, the "someone" that you speak of is one of the land managers for this park. The request is being made so that (as stated in the request) an official interpretive geo-trail can be installed in the park. The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?

 

On a personal note, this archive request is being made by someone that has made great contributions to the sport of geocaching, through hours of outreach, township meetings, planning and holding events, and personally conducting monthly introduction to geocaching classes where she has introduced both individuals and families to caching. So understand that this archive request was made with the pure intent of creating a greater caching experience for all.

 

Oh, boy. Please shoot me if I ever use my geocaching achievements and standing in the community to justify getting somebody else's caches archived.

 

I think the important thing here that everyone should be aware of is that both Old Navy and Ranger Lynn have made considerable contributions to improving the game, as well as creating excellent relations with town officials above and beyond most.

 

But just the same as the fact that bad people can change, be forgiven, and do good things, good people can also make mistakes. These are good people that made mistakes, and by banning members in an attempt to silence them, they are only digging themselves deeper. I am confident that somehow they will eventually wake up and make amends, but the negativity is just pushing them away to stubbornly avoid the obvious solution.

 

They may see themselves as doing the greater good, but I think that they don't realize that by taking away Briansnat's Christmas gifts as well as others just before the holidays, most people see them as something different..

 

Edited December 2, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool