Cache is way off the trail....

[+Korichnovui]

A few questions for you experienced types who have probably seen this sort of thing before:

 

In my locale there is a spot that is easily the most popular hiking/walking area in town. It gets heavy traffic and is carefully maintained by a local group of volunteers. They have carefully constructed, maintained, and improved several trails in this popular area. They have posted more than a few "stay on the trail" signs, as well, with the intent of preserving the natural landscape and avoiding damage from straying foot traffic. From what I've seen, this is a common sort of expectation of courtesy in many hiking areas around the US that get heavy traffic.

There are a few geocaches on the trail as well as 2 nice earthcaches. I found one of the traditionals recently, it was barely off the trail. I felt a little uncomfortable getting it because the culture is very much "stay on the trail". Since then I've been thinking about this more.

There is another cache that is clearly significantly off the trail. At least 100 feet away. I'm really surprised it was placed there. I doubt it was with the blessing of whoever is "in charge" of the land. There is a "centennial preserve" that "protects" the land. I seriously doubt the volunteer group or centennial preserve would be happy to know of the cache's existence.

My concern is that this cache (these caches?) is (are?) against the local rules and could have a negative effect on the reputation of geocaching. But should I be a busybody whistleblower on this? Is it "none of my business?" Should I just "vote with my feet" and not go to the other cache, just not say anything? Or should I be more proactive?

[+Max and 99]

I would not be a busybody whistleblower on the cache.  I like the idea of voting with your feet! 

[+dprovan]

Talk it over with the cache's owner. He might not be aware of the restriction -- perhaps because he's oblivious -- so he'll understand his error if you talk to him about it. Or he might be fully aware of the restriction and convince you his cache isn't a problem. This might include him thinking that there's a logical non-intrusive way to get to GZ, in which case you can help him see  why that logical approach wasn't apparent to you.

 

Or you might find out the CO's just a jerk, in which case you can think about whether to alert to trail maintainers or Groundspeak, or just want to keep it to yourself.

[+justintim1999]

If there are signs requesting visitors to stay on the trails then I'm reasonably sure the cache would be prohibited by the managing group.  If they knew about it.

 

This is just the type of situation that could get Geocaching baned from the property entirely. 

 

I would contact the cache owner first and voice this concern.   If you're not satisfied with the response or get no response at all,  I'd contact the centennial preserve and offer to help get the cache placed in a aproprate location.    If nothing else this action would show that there are cachers out there that care and are comitted to respecting and inforcing land use rules. 

 

Walking away from an issue wouldn't be an option for me.   In my opinion the expressed wishes of the land owner/manager trumps everything else.   Even my fear of being called a whistleblower. 

 

 

[+Touchstone]

Digging a bit deeper, it looks like the Preserve is owned by a private non profit agency, so I would treat the area as private property, and not use the same justification of, say a public park or open space.  That being said, the private agency can dictate the land use in any way they see fit.  Going to the trail page for the Preserve, it's pretty clearly spelled out that they expect people to remain on the trails they've developed.

 

Looking at the Listing page in question, the latest entry is a Note of someone that declined to go off trail to retrieve the cache due to the concern for the rules of the Preserve.  The Listing was Published nearly 10 years ago, while the Preserve was probably just getting developed (land acquired in 2003 and trail construction began 2005).  It might be that the rules for the Preserve were just being discussed when the cache was placed, or perhaps they weren't very well publicized yet.  The cache owner has not logged on to the site in a couple of years, so contacting them may be a pointless gesture.

 

Taking all things into account, I don't believe you'd be labeled as a busy body, by taking some action on the cache, since it clearly doesn't conform with the Land Manager's/Owner's wishes, which are clearly spelled out for public view.

[+justintim1999]

5 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Digging a bit deeper, it looks like the Preserve is owned by a private non profit agency, so I would treat the area as private property, and not use the same justification of, say a public park or open space.  That being said, the private agency can dictate the land use in any way they see fit.  Going to the trail page for the Preserve, it's pretty clearly spelled out that they expect people to remain on the trails they've developed.

 

Looking at the Listing page in question, the latest entry is a Note of someone that declined to go off trail to retrieve the cache due to the concern for the rules of the Preserve.  The Listing was Published nearly 10 years ago, while the Preserve was probably just getting developed (land acquired in 2003 and trail construction began 2005).  It might be that the rules for the Preserve were just being discussed when the cache was placed, or perhaps they weren't very well publicized yet.  The cache owner has not logged on to the site in a couple of years, so contacting them may be a pointless gesture.

 

Taking all things into account, I don't believe you'd be labeled as a busy body, by taking some action on the cache, since it clearly doesn't conform with the Land Manager's/Owner's wishes, which are clearly spelled out for public view.

I'm encouraged by the fact you took the time to research this and come to the conclusion you have.    My hat's off to you. 

[+Korichnovui]

Nice work touchstone! I’m guessing you’re pretty good at solving mystery caches.

 

Yeah, owner doesn’t appear to be active any longer. I’ll send them a message anyway, in case they still get email.

 

As my next step, I may bounce this off of one or two of the more prominent geocachers in my area, to get a feel for how people might react. It might help me on the best way to proceed.

[+cerberus1]

There's a few caches similar here,  placed (with permission) years before any park "rules" were formulated , and though they don't currently fit the new policies (any new cache must conform...), they're "grandfathered" in, since they aren't in sensitive areas.  We even had one, and still have another.

 - Another possibility...

If you feel you have to be the local busybody (how to make friends and influence people...), maybe it is a good idea to "bounce the idea" off a couple other players before you run off to tell.    

[+Touchstone]

1 hour ago, Korichnovui said:

Nice work touchstone! I’m guessing you’re pretty good at solving mystery caches.

 

Yeah, owner doesn’t appear to be active any longer. I’ll send them a message anyway, in case they still get email.

 

As my next step, I may bounce this off of one or two of the more prominent geocachers in my area, to get a feel for how people might react. It might help me on the best way to proceed.

Just an aside as a cautionary tale, we had a similar situation in a local State run Preserve as well as some BLM land. In the first situation, caches were summarily banned from the Preserve due to the perceived impact. In the BLM example, local cachers tried to work with the BLM to resolve some of the issues, but in the end, regulations were instituted that effectively banned caching from the open space. 

[+Max and 99]

4 hours ago, Touchstone said:

Digging a bit deeper, it looks like the Preserve is owned by a private non profit agency, so I would treat the area as private property, and not use the same justification of, say a public park or open space.  That being said, the private agency can dictate the land use in any way they see fit.  Going to the trail page for the Preserve, it's pretty clearly spelled out that they expect people to remain on the trails they've developed.

 

Looking at the Listing page in question, the latest entry is a Note of someone that declined to go off trail to retrieve the cache due to the concern for the rules of the Preserve.  The Listing was Published nearly 10 years ago, while the Preserve was probably just getting developed (land acquired in 2003 and trail construction began 2005).  It might be that the rules for the Preserve were just being discussed when the cache was placed, or perhaps they weren't very well publicized yet.  The cache owner has not logged on to the site in a couple of years, so contacting them may be a pointless gesture.

 

Taking all things into account, I don't believe you'd be labeled as a busy body, by taking some action on the cache, since it clearly doesn't conform with the Land Manager's/Owner's wishes, which are clearly spelled out for public view.

This information changes my answer! Well done. 

[+bflentje]

I would consider you a busy body cache cop...  but then I am only stating my opinion because you asked. Do what you think is right but make sure you're doing if for the right reasons. You have no idea about any of the conversations that may or may not have happened back in the day.

[+NanCycle]

IMO, the best thing you could do is talk to whoever is in charge of the preserve and let them know that they can get a free Premium membership in geocaching.  That way, they can keep track of whatever geocaches are on their property and deal with them as they see fit.  If they then decide they want any of the caches gone, they should just remove it and ask to have it archived.  In my experience, when such a property manager asks for an archive, it is done immediately.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

Land can change ownership, and restrictions on the use of land can change over time. Also, the people involved in the land management can change. However (with certain exceptions), once permission is given, GS assumes that permission is given in perpetuity. GS has no formal requirement that permission be re-applied for on a routine basis for all caches. (By the way, I'm NOT advocating for such a requirement.)

 

Given this, I I think NanCycle's reply is way to handle it. Let the land manager know that there is a geocache that may no longer meet their current land use restrictions. Let them make the call, it's their land. In addition, let the land manager know that there are some locations where geocachers are required to renew their permissions, or are only granted permission for a specific period of time. I know that some parks have this practice. Your preserve might decide that they want implement a permitting system for geocaches, and require that they be moved, or removed, after a couple of years, in order to give the area a chance to recover.

 

On the reputation side (and off on a tangent), ask the preserve management if you could hold a CITO event. Maybe start them off with a positive experience interacting with geocachers.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 5/30/2018 at 7:23 AM, justintim1999 said:

If you're not satisfied with the response or get no response at all,  I'd contact the centennial preserve and offer to help get the cache placed in a aproprate location.

 

I would suggest making a cautious approach on this issue. What are their policies about geocaching? How close do caches need to be to the trail? Maybe even provide that info to the CO, who should be approached in a friendly manner.

 

In my experience, some places are very strict when they say Stay On Trail, others less so, especially depending on the area and distance from trail.

[+Korichnovui]

Thanks for everyone's thoughtful replies, this is an interesting topic that should always be approached with a lot of thought and with intent to "do the right thing for the right reason"

 

To make some things clear:

1. The CO is inactive (but was messaged anyway just in case they get an email or something)

2. The landowners CLEARLY don't want people leaving the trail

3. The cache definitely shouldn't be where it is

 

So I asked one of the reviewers what their opinion is on the situation. They looked into it and disabled the cache for 1 month to give the CO a chance to either move the cache or provide proof of permission.

 

I have no qualms about this result because the intent is to keep geocaching in a good light to landowners and the public. In this area, people will notice you stomping way off the path, goofing off in the bushes, then coming back. They will ask you what you were doing out there and why you left the path. If you then tell them about geocaching (many honestly would, there's a whole other thread about it in this forum) then their impression of geocaching will be, "Oh, geocachers don't care about rules. They do what they want." It's not the sort of impression we want to send out.