+mozartman Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Thought you all mifght be interested in something happening in my neck of the desert, home to many geocachers! This was in the Phoenix AZ paper recently. Scottsdale combats "geocaching" in preserve or, in case I didn't insert the link correctly, here's the text of the article: Diana Balazs The Arizona Republic Jun. 2, 2003 12:00 AM SCOTTSDALE - Warning to Global Positioning System enthusiasts: Take your geocaches and skedaddle from Scottsdale's McDowell Mountain Preserve. A crackdown is under way to prevent geocaching - a game in which GPS devices are used to locate hidden containers, or caches - in the nearly 20,000-acre preserve. Claire Miller, the preserve manager, recently went so far as to climb the steep flanks of Thompson Peak to retrieve an old military surplus ammo box used in the game. Scottsdale officials consider the caches to be a form of littering, and the game encourages visitors to veer off trails and use motorized vehicles to find the containers, all illegal activities in the preserve. Eight or nine such caches have been removed from the nearly 20,000-acre preserve, and notices have been posted informing players of the bans on geocaching Web sites. Carla, the one-named executive director of the McDowell Sonoran Land Trust, said geocaching is in conflict with the city's preserve ordinance, which was created to protect a natural treasure and also provide for appropriate public access. Last year, when the preserve was closed due to extreme fire danger, some geocachers ignored the ban and went into the preserve, according to checks of e-mail postings on geocacher Web sites. Carla said one posting noted that the players simply ignored the fire closure signs and came in another way. Carla said geocaching sounds like a fascinating activity, but the very nature of hiding and searching means the preserve gets trampled, destroying delicate vegetation and ruining wildlife habitat. "It would create too much of an enforcement nightmare to try and make an exception for this sport. "The bottom line is it's just not compatible with the preserve," she said. Quote Link to comment
+TMAN264 Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 And it continues.......we have lost access to all of the game areas in the State of Michigan lately as well. Those areas have been deemed for hunting only. Make a sanity check. Quote Link to comment
Rabbit 282 Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by TMAN264:And it continues.......we have lost access to all of the game areas in the State of Michigan lately as well. Those areas have been deemed for hunting only. I just see that as a good excuse to wear orange and carry a shotgun when I'm caching No, I think that's horrible- both cases. Especially since part of geocaching- for many of us- is environmental awarness. I suppose, though, that some are just in it for the sport of the hunt and don't mind crossing the line. Such a shame. /Benjamin Carbondale, IL Caching Newbie Quote Link to comment
Dinoprophet Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 quote:Scottsdale officials consider the caches to be a form of littering, and the game encourages visitors to veer off trails and use motorized vehicles to find the containers, all illegal activities in the preserve. Clearly these officials are somewhat misinformed on geocaching. The good news is, the article gives a contact name with whom discussions can be initiated to possibly get this decision reversed. I made a big decision a little while ago. I don't remember what it was, which prob'ly goes to show That many times a simple choice can prove to be essential Even though it often might appear inconsequential. -- Bill Watterson Quote Link to comment
+Zartimus Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by TMAN264:And it continues.......we have lost access to all of the game areas in the State of Michigan lately as well. Those areas have been deemed for hunting only. Too bad Charleton Heston doesn't geocache. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 A game preseve that doesn't allow hunting is one thing. A preserve that does...allows everything that geocaching is and does to exist within it's boundareis. It's not like hunters even have the option of staying on the trail. "I shot the deer but since it died 4' off the trail I coudln't tag it and had to go shoot 3 more before one died on the trail and I could get it". Yeah right. As for a preserve itself and geocaching. Most allow hiking, most hikers check things out that look interesting the only difference in a typical preserve is the presence of a cache. I was once in the Redwoods in an area with a trail. Consider I stepped 3' off the trail to show my kids a banana slug and got chased back on. Naturally we later went to a 'non developed' area of the redwoods and walked all over the place. Do they really have such a lack of wisdom on things like this? ===================== Wherever you go there you are. Quote Link to comment
Dinoprophet Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Zartimus:Too bad Charleton Heston doesn't geocache. He'd probably hate these darn, dirty caches. I made a big decision a little while ago. I don't remember what it was, which prob'ly goes to show That many times a simple choice can prove to be essential Even though it often might appear inconsequential. -- Bill Watterson Quote Link to comment
+TMAN264 Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Great, as long as there isn't any Marc Wallberg caches out there.......insert Dirk Digler joke here. Make a sanity check. Quote Link to comment
selias Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 First of all, I am a relatively new geocacher and I don't know anything about the area that is the subject of this article. Having said that, the one thing that caught my attention in this article is the statement that some geocachers ignored signs that the park was closed and ventured in anyway. If that is true, it is certainly unfortunate and certainly does not provide us with good PR. It seems like they may have viewed some cache logs to substantiate this, but who knows whether it was 2 people or 200? It's a shame to see this happen to such a great activity... I hope to be able to cache for a long time without worrying about issues like this!! ** The Cacher foremerly known as "Scott / WA4SE." Thanks, Caching In for the inadvertent inspiration!! Quote Link to comment
scargosun Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Guess what! This "Carla" person's e-mail address is not working. I spent a good 10 minutes on an eloquent e-mail only to have it returned to me. Hmmmm.... Quote Link to comment
+WildcatRegi Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Hey Scargosun - post it here! "The hardest thing to find is something that's not there!" Quote Link to comment
team westhop Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 There was also a similar article in today's edition of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The headline was quite negative but the story seemed to try to put a positive light on geocaching. Hope it doesn't spell trouble for the Twin Cities geaocaching scene. Quote Link to comment
+Kouros Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Flatlander22:Having said that, the one thing that caught my attention in this article is the statement that some geocachers ignored signs that the park was closed and ventured in anyway. That part made me question the validity of the article (as did the bit about Geocaching encouraging cachers to use motor vehicles on sensitive land). A few other things don't seem to tally up in my own mind, but I wouldn't want to comment without seeing the cache logs in question. Seems to me like a badly written article attempting to demonise cachers by purposefully not painting the full picture (there's *lots* of pretty blatant positive stuff that even a third-rate journalist would have noted, such as CacheIn-TrashOut, actually encouraging people to enjoy the outdoors, the educational value etc), and not even having a point of view from a Geocacher, but rather a biased account of a situation about us potentially having an impact on sensitive land (for which there was a legitimate cause for concern). Either that or the journalist in question is just inept. ------ An it harm none, do what ye will [This message was edited by Kouros on June 02, 2003 at 03:27 PM.] Quote Link to comment
+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 I'd like to speak up in defense of Claire Miller. She has worked hard to make her bosses understand that geocaching is a good thing. Unfortunately the Preserve is right near some fancy wealthy gated communities whose residents have a lot of clout. Although geocaching has been banned from the Preserve, it has not (yet) been banned from Scottsdale Parks. The Arizona Republic has a history of painting geocaching in a poor light. They are a biased newspaper which sensationalizes every issue. They are responsible for changing the name of Squaw Peak in Phoenix in a high-handed forget-the-public's-right-to-have-a-say-we-know-what's-best-for-you kind of way. That moss-covered bucket I hailed as a treasure, For often at noon, when I returned from the field, I found it the source of an exquisite pleasure. Samuel Woodworth The Old Oaken Bucket Quote Link to comment
+TEAM 360 Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by mozartman:Eight or nine such caches have been removed from the nearly 20,000-acre preserve, and notices have been posted informing players of the bans on geocaching Web sites. Two of them were mine. My LOST ARK and the TEMPLE OF DOOM caches were both confiscated, and I never got them back. The Preserve sits surrounded by State Trust land, and the Preserve "authorities" blur the boundary lines to their favor when they see fit. At some of the entrances to the State Land, there are Preserve signs, at a place where I KNOW the Preserve boundaries don't even come close. LOST ARK was on top of a mountain which took 3 hours to get to the top and I was sure it was located on State Trust land, which allows Geocaching. I had to give up on ever seeing either one again, too bad about the TB in it. Quote Link to comment
+TEAM 360 Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:I'd like to speak up in defense of Claire Miller. She has worked hard to make her bosses understand that geocaching is a good thing. They are appointed by the Scottsdale City Council to oversee the Preserve. I spoke with Claire Miller over the phone a few days before the Preserve Commission met the last time, when another local geocacher tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Commission to take a nother look at the sport. Over the phone, she seemed in favor of the sport, getting me back my caches, etc...real nice...at the meeting, however, it was another story. She was the first one to speak out against Geocaching, unwilling to even open up the issue again, going on about how it damages the Preserve. I just went to find the notes on this particular meeting, they are not available at the Preserve website. Typical behind-the-back maneuvering of a politician trying to keep face and her job. [This message was edited by TEAM 360 on June 02, 2003 at 05:03 PM.] Quote Link to comment
selias Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Kouros: quote:Originally posted by Flatlander22:Having said that, the one thing that caught my attention in this article is the statement that some geocachers ignored signs that the park was closed and ventured in anyway. That part made me question the validity of the article (as did the bit about Geocaching _encouraging_ cachers to use motor vehicles on sensitive land). A few other things don't seem to tally up in my own mind, but I wouldn't want to comment without seeing the cache logs in question. What's the old saying about never letting the facts get in the way of a good story? I agree with many of the posts that the article seems a bit, well, light on facts. ** The Cacher foremerly known as "Scott / WA4SE." Thanks, Caching In for the inadvertent inspiration!! Quote Link to comment
+TEAM 360 Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Let me tell you: this Commission is SO against Geocaching that anyone who does any wrong to "their" Preserve (that's how they look at it) is automatically a "Geocacher". They are so close-minded that they wouldn't even agree to take another vote on the issue. I know, I was at that meeting. Quote Link to comment
+mozartman Posted June 2, 2003 Author Share Posted June 2, 2003 here is another article from the arizona republic from several days earlierthan the one I previously posted, quoting an actual geocacher (from Team Tierra Buena), so at least in this particular article, they attempted to get another view. Preserve out to stop "geocaching" Quote Link to comment
+larock Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Last year the National Forest that surrounds my home town also closed due to extreme fire danger. While out bicycling, on the paved streets, I saw many hikers, horse riders and even a few mt bikers ignoring the closed trail signs on the trails near the roads I was on. Of course from my vantage point I may not been able to see the GPSR that they must of been using to geocache. My point is the only reason geocachers got caught is because we make a log of our journey/visit. The hiker, horse rider and mt biker do not. Carla is a fool to think that only one group of outdoor visitors ignored the policy. Quote Link to comment
3fros Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Team 360: Sounds like it's time to make new virtual cache of your removed caches. I personally think that the place should be littered with virtuals so they are begging to go back to the 9 real caches. The area is about 20,000 acres, that's 31.25 square miles!! These wacked out environmentalists are way out of control. They think it is their land and that everyone else should just stay out. They want you to keep paying your taxes though so they can keep collecting their salaries, but we better not even think of trying to enjoy the land that WE own. Like 9 geocaches are going to do SO much damage to the land, give me a break. Don't they know that plants grow back. Sounds like it's time to do some re-electing of the Scottsdale city council. I always wonder how these wacko's get voted into offices (we've got plenty of them in Washington state too), and then I remember that the people sitting around with nothing to do have the time to vote, and the ones busy working to pay the taxes for the slackers, hauling the kids to soccer, and whatever else are often busy or too tired to vote. Perhaps a Geocacher or two should run for the Scottsdale city council. Look at that, now you got me all worked up and I was having such a relaxing day. Quote Link to comment
+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by TEAM 360: They are appointed by the Scottsdale City Council to oversee the Preserve. I spoke with Claire Miller over the phone a few days before the Preserve Commission met the last time, when another local geocacher tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Commission to take a nother look at the sport. Over the phone, she seemed in favor of the sport, getting me back my caches, etc...real nice...at the meeting, however, it was another story. She was the first one to speak out against Geocaching, unwilling to even open up the issue again, going on about how it damages the Preserve. I just went to find the notes on this particular meeting, they are not available at the Preserve website. Typical behind-the-back maneuvering of a politician trying to keep face and her job. [This message was edited by TEAM 360 on June 02, 2003 at 05:03 PM.] I didn't know that. My one contact with her was pleasant. But then again, I wasn't at that meeting. That moss-covered bucket I hailed as a treasure, For often at noon, when I returned from the field, I found it the source of an exquisite pleasure. Samuel Woodworth The Old Oaken Bucket Quote Link to comment
+Dread Pirate Roberts' Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 quote:Originally posted by TMAN264:And it continues.......we have lost access to all of the game areas in the State of Michigan lately as well. Those areas have been deemed for hunting only. Is this due to geocaching damaging the environment or to keep the geocachers from getting shot? If it's the former, it seems an argument could be made that gunfire is worse for the environment than an ammo can? Quote Link to comment
+Firefishe Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Dread Pirate Roberts': quote:Originally posted by TMAN264:And it continues.......we have lost access to all of the game areas in the State of Michigan lately as well. Those areas have been deemed for hunting only. Is this due to geocaching damaging the environment or to keep the geocachers from getting shot? If it's the former, it seems an argument could be made that gunfire is worse for the environment than an ammo can? Just as a caveat to the above statement by TMAN264, I would like to offer a counter-statement, take it or leave it as you desire, and at your leisure: To the best of my knowledge, this information regarding State Game Areas as being for hunting-only activities, may--or may not--be accurate, at least to the degree stated here. I think that this is overly speculative, and is based on the words of one person at the Federal level answering a question poised by a state agency, in response to a question poised by a Michigan geocacher. Fact is, "politics-is-politics as usual" in Michigan, and this state has had a considerable amount of buck-passing which has occurred in the past. As with all public land areas, ask more than one agency or field office, and you're bound to get two or three different answers. This kind of ambiguity only serves to confuse the person asking the question. I have an effective way to deal with these types of situations: Don't Ask! Now this is only one Firefish's opinion (and we have many ), but if the location is remote enough, and hidden well enough, and not visited much, no one is probably going to do a blasted thing about it, unless somebody "makes an issue of it" in the first place, which I think has been done here. Caveat Emptor Informium, which, loosely translated means, Let The Buyer of Information, Beware! Be Wary, that is, of information that is only verified through one or two agencies, offices, or departments, especially ...of Natural Resources. The fact of the matter is, save for a few areas in Michigan that are designated wilderness areas, most state forest and game lands are designated multi-purpose or multi-use areas and are <probably okay> for geocaching. I angle bracket the above, as it's up to the geocache placer to BE AWARE of what area he or she is placing the cache in, what the rules are, and what the consequences might be. You hide a cache near a federal building, and you're liable to get arrested with M16-A2's being levelled at your head. Put the same cache 10 miles out in the woods, and you're probably not going to get much in the way of same. My argument is against placing geocaches in heavily urban environments, locales with trigger-happy police department personnel who are driven more by emotion, rather than utilzing their intellects to figure things out. Please TMAN264, please stop the statements like "we have lost all our state game areas." I've read and re-read the matters pertaining to this case, and do not know of any areas that are set aside "only for hunting." This would constitute a game "preserve," some of which exist but, for the most part, are privately owned. Refutations are gladly accepted, but I have dealt with Michigan politics on the DNR side as a citizen for a long time. I bring to light the 1984 Pigeon River Dam incident, in which a small hydro-electric dam was in need of repairs, and the flood gate had to be lowered over the course of a certain segment of time to prevent downstream silt from the pond behind it overflowing and damaging the trout population. The DNR and the Michigan State Government passed the buck so many times on this one, that by the time they figured out who was in charge of this thing (was it waterways, was it the DNR, was it?...etc.), someone decided to open the flood gate all the way and the entire river downstream from the dam site was "running black" with silt, according to the Otsego County Herald Times newspaper out of Gaylord, Michigan. Fact: No One Really Took Responsibility In The First Place! (This situation sound familiar today? Does anyone really desire to take responsibility for anything?) I think that this situation is similar in stature, at least from the overt statements by both agencies. Just because one gov't agency's rep. says something is plaid, doesn't always mean it's plaid--it may just be chartreuse, the rep. doesn't like the color, so they ad-lib a bit. If I'm proven to be wrong, so be it. I just have a guess that I just might know what I'm saying on at least *some* of the issues here. Check It Out First, please! ...Caching In on the Journey {--Firefishe--} P.S. As a sign of my own commitment to "getting things done properly, and in a balanced matter," I would be joyful and delighted to have anyone who wants to support me in the endeavor, have me call the state agencies for them--whatever aspect of geocaching you're interested in--and act as a liasion between them and the proper agencies. I am not afraid to do this, as the sad fact is, responsibility and having someone to answer to would suit me just fine. You don't want the job, give it to me. Most of the time I'm at home veggin' on my Sager laptop, posting in these forums , and I need something constructive to do, something that would be conducive to, say, *get me out geocaching*, both actively, and on the political-representative side. MiGO, are you hearing this? If not, I'm starting my own PAC for the sport, and going my own way. I'm tired of the same ol' "b/s as usual" stuff, and want to bring some needed insight into why this activity/hobby/sport, what-have-you, is "good for the human soul." Geocaching has changed my life, and I will be forever-grateful to the Dept. of Defense/Aerospace Companies who put up the sats., and Jeremy and the rest who started geocaching.com! I salute you all! Ready and willing to work in the field and in the voting booth, I remain, Faithfully yours, Firefishe ...Caching In On The Journey! --------------------------- The year is 2003. The name is S.A. Brown. BrowNAV (Brown Navigation) --------------------------- [This message was edited by Firefishe on June 03, 2003 at 04:44 AM.] Quote Link to comment
+bigredmed Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Its a sad statement on our society that on the same forum where we discuss geocaching becoming increasingly outlawed, we have other groups who use the public's land for decidedly sorted activity and seem to be immune to the same legal challenges that we, a bunch of people who like to go hiking to find some spot in the park, are facing. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nebraskache/ Quote Link to comment
+TEAM 360 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Well, as usual, the four most hated words: "Preserved for future generations" are used by environmentalists who think that any activity on the land will ruin the pretty wildflowers and scare the animals. When did WE take a lower priority than friggin flowers, for PETE'S sake? That is nothing more than an excuse to keep people out INDEFINITELY. 10, 50, or 100 years later they will still be saying, "future generations". The "stay on-trail only" rules are a joke. You must be referring to the trails that they BULLDOZED RIGHT THROUGH the Preserve. You should see the huge piles of rocks they left sitting on the trail waysides. Alot more damage than any cache could ever do in a thousand years. Now as if my footsteps across the desert are going to hurt anything. You may say I will be stepping on the plants and flowers. Ever been out here? You don't WANT to step on the plants and flowers around here, unless you enjoy PAIN. Native Americans have been wandering freely all over this place for hundreds, even thousands of years, and the Preserve seems to have come along just fine without a "McDowell Sonoran Preserve Commission". Now all of a sudden they have to "protect" it. WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING: It's the typical rich man with the big home on the edge of the Preserve thinking: "I got mine, now you get out". Wants to turn it into an extension of his own back yard and keep everyone else away. I am thinking about placing a cache in there, on the State Trust land, maybe just a few feet outside of the Preserve land, placed so that a shortcut across the Preserve would get you there quicker. In fact, maybe a big multi-cache around the perimeter of the Preserve, say, evenly spaced about .1 miles apart? Now ya got me thinking....... Quote Link to comment
+TEAM 360 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 quote:Originally posted by bigredmed:Its a sad statement on our society that on the same forum where we discuss geocaching becoming increasingly outlawed, we have other groups who use the public's land for decidedly sorted activity and seem to be immune to the same legal challenges that we, a bunch of people who like to go hiking to find some spot in the park, are facing. What's even sadder is when a million bucks is given to an idiot who holds hot McDonalds coffee between her legs and gets burned when it slops over the edge onto her. The insanity continues..... Quote Link to comment
+TMAN264 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Maybe my original statement was too broad, but it was my understanding that MiGo (the Michigan Geocacheing Organization) was asking all the cache owners to archieve caches in the State Game Areas. The only one I have been to and know by name is the Cannonsburg game area, where I was fourtunate enough to hunt for caches there the weekend before the caches were indeed archived. I believe it is MiGo's stance that cache owner remove and archieve the cahes in these areas, so isn't that indeed the same as having lost the area? It was also my understanding that the reasoning behind banning Geocaching, as well as other activities in these areas, was that were indeed set aside by state and federal dollars for the purpose of hunting during the appropriate seasons, and the regrowth of the hunted species during the non-hunting seasons. I think that is the gist of the issue, so please do not tell me what to post or not to post FireFishe. Make a sanity check. Quote Link to comment
+zoltig Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 quote:Originally posted by TEAM 360:Well, as usual, the four most hated words: "Preserved for future generations" I think we skould call ourselves "The Future Generation" geocachers. Buy Fuji Quote Link to comment
+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Preserving Geocaching for Future Generations. My new motto. Quote Link to comment
+Bull Moose Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 "The one named Carla?" Sounds like some sort of hippie. Ever try having a rational conversation with a hippie? They have no interest in anyones viewpoint but their own. Quote Link to comment
+Team Tierra Buena Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Dinoprophet: quote:Scottsdale officials consider the caches to be a form of littering, and the game encourages visitors to veer off trails and use motorized vehicles to find the containers, all illegal activities in the preserve. Clearly these officials are somewhat misinformed on geocaching. "These officials" are as informed as they desire to be. At the beginning of the year, a single-engine aircraft took off from Scottsdale Airport, just a few miles southwest of the Preserve. The pilot was unfamiliar with the area, and on a moonless night flew straight into a mountaintop within the Perserve, killing himself and his wife. At the Preserve Commission meeting where they finalized the prohibition on Geocaching, the first item on their agenda was a discussion with an official from the airport. The Commission was attempting to determine if and how they could ban aircraft from flying over the Preserve. Steve Team Tierra Buena Quote Link to comment
+Team Tierra Buena Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Flatlander22:...the one thing that caught my attention in this article is the statement that some geocachers ignored signs that the park was closed and ventured in anyway. If that is true, it is certainly unfortunate and certainly does not provide us with good PR. It's true. See the log entry for June 21, 2002 on the Mc Dowell Cache. What neither the Commission nor The Arizona Republic has ever let us say in response is that after the log was posted, the local Geocaching community contacted the cacher and pointed out the need for more responsible Geocaching (it was one of the first caches he had found). The cacher joined the mailing list (at the Arizona Geocaching web site, apologized to the caching community for his actions, and became a very active contributor and cacher until he enlisted in the Navy. I wonder if the hikers, mountain bikers, and rock climbers who are permitted in the Preserve would look after someone in this fashion if they discovered one of their colleagues breaking the rules? But the anti-Geocaching factions in Arizona (and there are a few) love to throw the first part of this story in our faces any time someone says something positive about Geocaching. In retrospect, perhaps the biggest mistake we've ever made was in not getting the cacher to delete that log. Steve Team Tierra Buena Quote Link to comment
+Team Tierra Buena Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 quote:Originally posted by TEAM 360:I spoke with Claire Miller over the phone a few days before the Preserve Commission met the last time, when another local geocacher tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Commission to take a nother look at the sport. Over the phone, she seemed in favor of the sport, getting me back my caches, etc...real nice...at the meeting, however, it was another story. She was the first one to speak out against Geocaching, unwilling to even open up the issue again, going on about how it damages the Preserve. My recollection differs from Team 360's. The remarks that he attributes to Claire Miller were made by Carla (as the local papers sometimes describe it, "her full legal name"). Claire Miller and I spent many hours preparing for that meeting. We even hiked out to one of the now-archived caches together so she could understand better how the game was played and how caching might affect the Preserve. While I don't have the right to speak for her, I am confident her opinion is that managed Geocaching could be an appropriate use of the Preserve. But Claire is an employee of the City of Scottsdale, and her job is not to make Preserve policy, but to enforce the policies created by the Preserve Commission. quote:I just went to find the notes on this particular meeting, they are not available at the Preserve website. Typical behind-the-back maneuvering of a politician trying to keep face and her job. I've been reading those Commission meeting minutes for months now, but they're always three to five months behind in getting them posted. I can't wait to see the April minutes, myself. Steve Team Tierra Buena Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 There are many activities that have considerably more impact on the land than geocaching. Some legal and many illegal. The difference is that illegal ATVers, poachers, dumpers, etc... don't post their actions on the internet for all to see. Because we do, this makes us an easy target. It's lot simpler for them to declare geocaching a "scourge" and act to remove our caches, than it is to spend time and effort necessary to catch dumpers, poachers and illegal ATVers. It would help though if cache owners would disable their caches when an area is temporarily closed due to fire hazard. "Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois" Quote Link to comment
cleahy Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 When I first heard about this, I figured it was a small, delicate preserve. Now that I've read all of this, it's beginning to look different. It now sounds more like some two faced, career climber blaming the cachers for everything anyone has done in her park. In general Geocachers are fairly responsible, it's endemic. It the sport was full of irresponsible idiots, there would be far too many plundered and vandalized caches for us to enjoy the sport. I think we just have someone here that likes to get a lot of press, and is using geocaching as her vehicle to the local paper. For crying out loud, if Bush can let those dadgum loud, obnoxious, dirty snowmobiles and off-road-vehicles into the parks I'm trying to enjoy, then this place can stand a cacher taking a few steps off the path on occassion. DrMemory Quote Link to comment
+SylvrStorm Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Team Tierra Buena:What neither the Commission nor _The Arizona Republic_ has ever let us say in response is that after the log was posted, the local Geocaching community contacted the cacher and pointed out the need for more responsible Geocaching (it was one of the first caches he had found). The cacher joined the mailing list (at the http://www.azgeocaching.com web site, apologized to the caching community for his actions, and became a very active contributor and cacher until he enlisted in the Navy. I wonder if the hikers, mountain bikers, and rock climbers who are permitted in the Preserve would look after someone in this fashion if they discovered one of their colleagues breaking the rules? In retrospect, perhaps the biggest mistake we've ever made was in not getting the cacher to delete that log. Better yet - you should ask him to update his log entry. Put an apology there, thank the geocaching community for educating him, and urging others to follow the rules. That might do a bit to take the wind out of their sails and help them realize that the geocaching community as a whole is responsible. *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. *** Quote Link to comment
Micqn Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 I think this is all quite fascinating. I live in an area that has a "nature preserve" of sorts, its called the Jordan River Parkway. It runs from Bluffdale, UT to North Salt Lake City, UT, a good 25 miles. Here they encourage its 'use'; and it is used. (please pardon my punctuation) The Parks and Recreation Division in the Salt Lake Valley actually uses gates to keep people from driving onto the parkway (something the City of Scottsdale should be able to install due to its 'wealthy' residents tax dollars) and there are fence ladders to get over fences for fishing and other such activities. I have seen people training their hunting dogs on his 'preserve'. Geocaching on the Parkway has just gone crazy because it's such a nice place to be and if we are paying for the development of this area we ought to be able to use it the way we want to with consideration for the environment. Also, as geocachers we need to respect the areas we cache in by using exsisting trails as much as possible and unfortuanatley hiding the caches in an area that are a little more accessible from the trail. These are my thoughts, flame me as you will. Get Over It. Quote Link to comment
+Sea_Dog Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 quote: Carla said geocaching sounds like a fascinating activity, but the very nature of hiding and searching means the preserve gets trampled, destroying delicate vegetation and ruining wildlife habitat. Check out the May 30th logs to this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=14564 With log entries like these it won't be long before Geocaching is banned in Virginia State Parks. Quote Link to comment
+Katoomer Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 I am from Michigan. Thank you Firefishe for your excellant wisdom regarding your comments on State Game Areas. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.