Jump to content

The County has Spoken!!


Recommended Posts

Are you ready for a good line of govermental *ull*hit! This is the letter I received from the county this afternoon. icon_razz.gif

 

EDIT 8/30 - Well I edited the Cache GC2799 now we will see what happens. With only 6 visits in 6 months those spotted wandering off trail or onto private lands were probably other users of this space. It seems that the officals have misconstured a word from a special song. "This land is yours, this Land is mine ..." And they only look at the word MINE!!

 

I am responding to your inquiry regarding geocaching at the Devil's Backbone Open

Space. After a six month trial period where we've

monitored geocaching on our Parks and Open Lands Properties, we recently have decided department-wide to not allow geocaching primarily due to

resource damage, trespass by geocachers' onto adjacent private lands, and lack of formal request to place cache's on our properties.

 

It is important to our mission to balance natural resource protection while allowing acceptable outdoor recreation on properties such as the

Devil's Backbone. One means to minimize impacts to natural resources (i.e. foothills grassland vegetation, rock outcrops, nesting raptors,

etc.) is to require users to remain on designated trails. Particularly at the Devil's Backbone Open Space, rangers have observed geocachers

leaving the designated trail on the open space as well as leaving the open space boundaries and wandering onto private property as they try to

find the virtual caches. While the GPS unit points users in a straight line, our trails wind and bend and many users have not stayed on the

trails as they follow the "arrow" towards the cache point.

 

Good relationships with adjacent private landowners is critical to our mission as well, and complaints from our neighbors of geocachers

trespassing on their properties is a concern.

 

At this time, we have had no formal request from geocachers requesting permission to place cache's (virtual or traditional) on our properties

which is a concern to us as well. We would appreciate your removing the coordinates for the virtual caches at the Devil's Backbone Open Space

from your website.

 

I hope this email helps to answer your question and please do not

hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.

 

Respectfully,

 

Meegan Flenniken

Resource Specialist

Larimer County Parks and Open Lands

1800 S. County Rd. 31

Loveland, CO 80537

(970) 679-4562

(970) 679-4562

 

The "Bushwhacker"

needs_a_shave.gif

Exitus acta probat

>>--->

 

[This message was edited by Bushwhacker on August 30, 2002 at 06:15 AM.]

 

[This message was edited by Bushwhacker on August 30, 2002 at 06:40 AM.]

Link to comment

But based on what they said in their letter they might be justified in banning geocaching. It looks like a case of a few thoughtless cache hunters giving the sport a black eye.

 

Since the department is comprised of public servants charged with protecting the natural resources of the area I think I can understand their knee-jerking.

 

A few months ago I was walking on a trail in a local preserve looking for a cache when a fellow cache hunter burst out the woods, looked around for a moment and stepped off the trail right back into the woods in search of his quary.

 

Literally four feet from the point where he entered the woods was a sign reading, "Waterfowl Nesting Area -- Stay Out" (or words to that affect. I don't remember teh exact wording - only that the area was clearly off limits."

 

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bushwhacker:

We would appreciate your removing the coordinates for the virtual caches at the Devil's Backbone Open Space

from your website.

>>--->


 

i find that kinda funny, do you (personaly) even have a cache on their lands?

 

two things:

have they made a formal regulation forbiding geocaching?

how can you appeal?

guess you have to get some cachers from the area to make a presentation and hope the board (is it a board?) can get pass their bad first impression (er 6month impression)

 

whack.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly B Good:

A few months ago I was walking on a trail in a local preserve looking for a cache when a fellow cache hunter burst out the woods, looked around for a moment and stepped off the trail right back into the woods in search of his quary.

 

Literally four feet from the point where he entered the woods was a sign reading, "Waterfowl Nesting Area -- Stay Out" (or words to that affect. I don't remember teh exact wording - only that the area was clearly off limits."

Jolly R. Blackburn


 

there was a cache hidden in a off limits area? icon_confused.gif

 

whack.gif

Link to comment

_______________________________________________

QUOTE: It is important to our mission to balance natural resource protection while allowing acceptable outdoor recreation on properties such as the Devil's Backbone.

_________________________________________________

 

What is an “acceptable” activity? The last time I was in the forest there were animals crapping all over the place! Some even defecated right near or in their water supply! Others were bickering and fighting and there was even a murder or two. Is that acceptable?

 

______________________________________________

QUOTE: ......is to require users to remain on designated trails....

_______________________________________________

 

It’s a good thing Louis & Clark stayed on the designated trails!

 

 

What a load of, well you know.

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................

Link to comment

My question would be how the county promoted the fact that they had policy in place. The simplest solution would have had people with approved caches to put a note in the description, providing the appropriate contact information.

Sounds like they created a policy and then expected everyone to be psychicly aware of it.

Link to comment

That’s what my reply would be to any request to remove the listing of a virtual cache located on property open to public use. A virtual cache is simply the sharing of a location utilizing latitude and longitude between individuals. Could they “request” that park visitors not speak of the park to others? Well, they could request, but I think most people would laugh at such a request. That’s how I hope you respond to their request to remove the listing of the virtual caches.

 

The reasons they state for their decision are valid concerns for land managers. I can’t say they did not observe geocachers leaving the trails or the park boundary. However, I have a hard time believing that this is behavior confined to geocachers. I have to believe that there are others rule breakers among the number of hikers, bikers, joggers, birdwatchers and horseback riders who enjoy this space. Geocaching is just a subset of any of these activities.

 

They have the authority to regulate the activities within the park but not to regulate an individual’s reason for participating in that activity.

 

Quote from http://www.co.larimer.co.us/parks/bbone.htm

The Devil's Backbone Open Space provides abundant opportunities on a seven-mile trail for outdoor recreation including hiking, running, horseback riding, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, observing nature, as well as enjoying close up inspection of the rock outcrop and long vistas of the area.

Just don’t show up with a GPS receiver in hand. icon_rolleyes.gif Keep the virtual caches.

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Whidbey Walk:

By the way, this looks like a really cool place. icon_cool.gif


 

Yeah, maybe so ... but keep it to yourself ... and don't look if you go there! icon_biggrin.gif

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION"

... when you absolutely have to find it first!

Link to comment

Have you tried to contact some of the local land owners adjoining the Public Lands to get their opinion and or to put a cache on their land joining the Park. I believe that this might be an alternative get local support. See what the majority of Lovelanders think, I know a few who like the Idea of geocaching and the Public servants on the Park boards have to have the local support to maintain their actions. STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN THIS IS (AMERICA) The Home of the FREE and BRAVE. we all put our pants on the same way every day!!!!!!!

Link to comment

I fail to see how they have the right to ban virtuals. I understand (although I don't agree with it), how they may view a real cache as litter or abandoned property and ban those. But there is a 1st Amendment issue here with virtual caches.

Personally, I'd leave the virtuals there and nicely advise them that they have no right to tell you what you're allowed to publish on the internet (lible and kiddy porn of course excluded).

 

Is their next step banning GPS usage in the area?

 

To address the issue of people leaving the trail and going straight across country to find a cache(virtual or real), try adding some additional info to the cache page.

 

I'll add something like "Resist the urge to bushwack and stay on the trail until you get near the cache site. The trail turns at times in the wrong direction, but it will bring you within x feet of the cache if you stick with it

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

Link to comment

Yes, I think it is rather odd for them to request that you to remove a virtual cache from the listings here, but at least they wrote back with a polite letter that explained the problems they have been having with other geocachers.

 

I can understand why they would be upset - people creating trails where they aren't supposed to be walking, littering, etc - I've seen it around my own caches, so I can imagine the frustration of the caretakers of the land there.

 

I agree with the person who said that maybe some better wording on the cache page may help to encourage people to stay on the beaten path - maybe a reminder not to go tromping off through the growth in order to get to the virtual cache location.

 

I'm not sure what would happen if you replied to this person, letting them know that you aren't going to remove the virtual cache listing. While I can't understand how they'd be able to justify the removal of simple lat/lon coordinates - I can see where they might be annoyed, after crafting a fairly nice letter to you explaining why they wanted it removed.

 

Personally, I would remove the coordinates. If I find that ANY of my caches are doing harm to the area, whether by littering or unwanted bushwhacking or whatever - I would remove it. I wouldn't just leave the virtual coordinates online "because I can" and basically thumb my nose at the park's request.

 

If real damage is being done by people following their GPSr to the virtual cache location, and the park has seen this and bothered to write to you about it - why wouldn't you want to help them out by removing the coordinates?

 

You may have had the best of intentions, wanting folks to visit that location for some reason - but despite that, damage is being done to that area because of geocachers.

 

- Toe.

 

--==< Rubbertoe's WEBCAM >==--

Link to comment

After your Aug 29 edit, I'd have to say they shouldn't have any problem with this virtual cache. You only direct them to the parking lot, and tell them to follow the trail to answer questions. That should work, as there won't be any any misunderstood GPS pointers, seemingly telling people to go off-trail.

 

Again, if I were in this situation - I would feel that the cache has been edited to cause no harm... BUT, if asked again to not include this virtual cache online, I'd probably still remove it.

 

I don't think the parks department is just out to get geocache hiders or hunters - I think they must have some legitimate complaint. But again, this appears to remedy all the complaints that they had about your original virtual. I hope that is good enough for them. Sounds like a nice park.

 

On a side note - posting their e-mail here and on the log entry page for that cache might seem a little combative to them, if they check up on such things. Especially since you called what they said "boolsheet" icon_wink.gif

 

- Toe.

 

--==< Rubbertoe's WEBCAM >==--

Link to comment

I have to agree with BrianSnat. I think a little more information on the Cache page (In bold letters) might remind more people to stay on the trail.

 

I plead the fifth here, but I admit I have been walking on a nice paved path and the arrow starts to point way off in another direction. So, off through the grass and woods I went. I spent close to 20 minutes hiking through the grass, getting weeds stuck in my scoks, getting my shoes wet, and having to climb over fallen trees. As I approached the cache site, I ended up crossing over the original paved path I was on! Argh! I should have stayed on it the whole time. It had curved away from the cache location, but then curved back. If this had been mentioned on the webpage, I would have stayed on the path the whole time (the cache wasn't even 15 feet from the path!)

 

Anyways, I do find it humorous that Larimer County Parks says we can't post locations of public land. What's next?? "Oh, you can't look at the satellite flying over the park at night because it's owned by the government and is flying over an area that is protected..." Come on.

 

What frustrates me more about this whole topic (and Larimer County) is that I've hiked MANY trails around here that have been destroyed by mountain bikers. They go whichever way they want, causing more trails to be formed. It looks like a labrinth of trails in some areas (I have nothing against mountain bikers, however... I just think bike tires cause more damage than Nikes)

 

I would like to see the "proof" or "data" the Larimer County Parks Dept was talking about. They said over the last six months they have been collecting data. What was the percentage of hikers? If the cache has been logged only 6 times in 6 months, that means only one person per month was out walking with a GPS. How many "non-geocachers" a DAY go hiking in this popular area? I've seen 20-30 cars in the parking lot in the evenings on weekdays! So, lets average 5 people a day (a low number) for 6 months = 900 people. Hmmm... A ratio of 6/900. Wow. We geocachers must be detrimental to the environment! icon_wink.gif Personally, I think the "problematic" people are normal hikers walking along and saying, "Oh, take my picture of me up on that cool rock. Wait until I hike up there, etc, etc".

 

Anyways, enough rambling... Sorry.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bushwhacker:

Are you ready for a good line of govermental *ull*hit! This is the letter I received from the county this afternoon. icon_razz.gif


 

Unfortunately many of us have the same mind set and attitude that led you to call that letter bull*hit when it comes to this activity in general. Meegan Flenniken's job is to protect the park from abuse and damage. Perhaps "Bushwhacker" is a bit to indicative of the way geocachers think. Singing that is land is "my land" does not give us the right to damage a park owned by the local or federal government. Is the land on which your house stands my land?

 

In regards to virtual coordinates ... I hope you don't try to play the part of Jack Freedom by refusing to remove the cache listing. That behavior is what caused the problem in the first place ... placing without permission. If you want to exercise your freedom, vote for a county commissioner who agrees with your views.

Link to comment
Originally posted by DisQuoi:

 

In regards to virtual coordinates ... I hope you don't try to play the part of Jack Freedom by refusing to remove the cache listing. That behavior is what caused the problem in the first place ... placing without permission.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is America and we do have a First Ammendment! Do I have to ask permission before I wish to tell anyone that at the corner or Main and Broadway there is a neat thing, tell me about it?

 

The "Bushwhacker"

needs_a_shave.gif

Exitus acta probat

>>--->

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DisQuoi:

 

Meegan Flenniken's job is to protect the park from abuse and damage...


 

The end does not justify the means.

 

Government employees (of which I am, indirectly, one) have a responsibility to ensure that they do not exceed their statutory authority when doing their jobs. Police, for example, have the job of enforcing the laws, but they must be very careful to do that in accordance with the Constitution.

 

Likewise, land managers may have the job of protecting their parks, but they cannot violate the law in doing so. Demanding the removal of virtual caches is clearly beyond the scope of their authority, and I think it sets a bad precedent for geocachers to accede to such a demand.

Link to comment

quote:
In regards to virtual coordinates ... I hope you don't try to play the part of Jack Freedom by refusing to remove the cache listing. That behavior is what caused the problem in the first place ... placing without permission.

 

I'm sorry but I hope that you DO refuse to remove the cache listing. A virtual cache is not placed, it is listed. We all have a responsibility as citizens to not let the government violate our rights (1st Amendment in this case) just because this time it doesn't bother us. Next time it may be important to you but it is too late because we have already gone down that slippery slope into tyranny.

 

Okay off my soapbox now icon_biggrin.gif I beleive in obeying the law. I just think the government needs to obey also

Link to comment

First, Jolly B Good, I hear you, but many won't. I'm sure that there are moderate points of view on access issues, but not many speak up on these forums.

 

Second, just to set history straight. Lewis and Clark did follow established trails. If the trails had not existed, and if they had not been guided by locals, they would have lost more than one man.

 

Third, for all the flag waving folks in the audience, what about property owners rights? If I am reading the message correctly, private property owners have specifically complained. It is not "our" land, it is "their" land. It is quite possible that the county is dependant upon private granted right of way for access.

 

One of the problems with standing on principle is that it is easy to be a hypocrit if you don't apply it both ways.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

In all seriousness, I agree about the private property issue. If I had some I might be reluctant to have people rummaging about my property uninvited. I don’t think I would complain about it unless it was clearly marked as being private property. I wouldn’t go pissing and moaning to the authorities if there was no way a reasonable person could tell my property from the park’s property though.

 

As to removing a virtual cache, I would ignore their request to remove the lat-longs from any web-site. If they insisted I would kindly tell them to bite my ***.

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................

Link to comment

quote:
One of the problems with standing on principle is that it is easy to be a hypocrit if you don't apply it both ways.

 

I absolutely agree. With rights come responsibilities, and all Geocachers need to respect laws and private property rights. I just want to be respected in return and I really do believe that we have to assert our rights even when the easy thing would be to let it go "this time" because it was "no big deal". I actually like the solution that Bushwacker has come up with. No one can say that the coordinates led to improper use of the park and the virtual cache remains for those who want to enjoy the park which would seem to be the primary purpose in the first place :cool

Link to comment

It seems we all agree that they have no right to ban a virtual cache. I also wonder about their "study". Supposedly the cache in question had 6 visitors over it's 6 months (correct me if I'm wrong). This number is about in line with the number of visits to most of my caches (not counting the urban ones). Heck, even if all six visitors bushwacked directly to the cache, knowing the inaccuracy of our GPSr's, there is no way they would have taken the exact same route (unless there was a pre-exising herd path).

 

Most of these "authorities" are well meaning , but unimagnitive and short sighted people, but a

certain percentage of them are power hungry, autocrats.

 

I doubt these people did a genuine, controlled study. Most likely, they simply saw someone walking across a field holding a GPSr and decided against sport without assesing the true impact.

 

I know of one geocacher who was asked to remove a cache from a National Recreation Area. Being administered by the NPS, they are banned in NRA's. However his cache was in a litter strewn, abandoned airfield in Brooklyn...not exactly the backcountry of Yellowstone. In fact, the area may well have been better off because of the visits of Geocachers. Instead of being simply a dumping ground, it may have caught eye of a few visitors who might have decided it was worth cleaning up.

 

Last I heard however, the cache is gone, but the construction debris and litter is still there. Now what is the sense in that?

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on August 30, 2002 at 07:36 PM.]

Link to comment

To all who insist on that to remove a virtual cache because a park manager asked you to:

 

No one in a Smokey-the-Bear outfit is coming to your house with a gun. No government agency is splicing into your internet cable to brain wash you. No black vans are jamming your GPS. It was a request from someone who has to answer to those tax payers who pay their salary to ensure that the land is managed in a safe and responsible manner. Please read the letter and ask yourself what she is saying ...

 

"At this time, we have had no formal request from geocachers requesting permission to place cache's (virtual or traditional) on our properties

which is a concern to us as well. We would appreciate your removing the coordinates for the virtual caches at the Devil's Backbone Open Space

from your website."

 

No one has exceeded their authority. I ask my self this ... WWJD?

 

What Would Jeremy Do? I would expect him to remove the cache listing upon reading this land manager's email. Or at least hear what he has to say about it. ... or would he be violating you as well?

 

In America, everyone has a right to be a d**k.

Link to comment

Jeremy can archive any cache he wants to. He appears to be a pretty bright guy, so I think he'd also have some problems with the blanket banning of virtual caches on certain public lands. Oddly enough, I've yet to see him weigh in on this issue.

 

I think it's an important one. To paraphrase Martin Niemoller, "First they came for my real caches, then then came for my virtuals..."

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DisQuoi:

 

In America, everyone has a right to be a d**k.


 

Disquoi, I know you are an excellent cacher, and I respect your opinion, even if I disagree. I don't think namecalling will contribute to a productive discussion.

 

I understand your point that land managers should attempt to protect their lands, but I don't follow your logic to the conclusion that we should immediately accede to any request from a land manager to remove a virtual cache from managed land.

 

Most of these land managers have a mandate to protect the land while still keeping it open for public use. Demanding (or requesting) the removal of virtual caches is a very different thing from prohibiting off-road vehicles, for example. I would have no problem with a park manager choosing to step up enforcement of on-trail policies, or something equivalent. What bothers me is the idea that they can (or should) prohibit publication of coordinates that lie in their jurisdiction based only on the fear that such a publication might lead to damage.

Link to comment

Someone said the park personnel were "just doing their Job", but were they? If they (the park people) saw someone "tromping" around where they weren't suppose to, isn't it their job to tell the person, "Hey, you're not suppose to be walking through here!" Did they just stand there and watch the person (or many, many people according to them) destroy the habitat?

 

Shouldn't they have done something to correct the person's unacceptable action while it was occuring? If the offending person was a hiker, is hiking now banned? Or is it O.K. to "tromp" through the park and destroy the habitat as long as I don't have a GPS on me?

 

How do they know it was a geocacher unless they stood there watching them? And if they did, I ask again, why didn't they stop the person and correct their actions?

 

I suppose if someone breaks into a car in the parking lot, they're just going to stand there and watch the person and then afterwards claim it was a geocacher & say the coordinates for the parking lot must be removed.

 

Everyone is discussing whether or not the park can ban virtual caches. Shouldn't the real question be why these park employees are NOT doing their job of protecting the park from abuse by whoever is doing it, whether that person is a geocacher or a hiker?

 

"The way of the Wind is a strange, wild way."

Link to comment
Originally posted by DisQuoi:

Please read the letter and ask yourself what she is saying ...

 

_"At this time, we have had no formal request from geocachers requesting permission to place cache's (virtual or traditional) on our properties

which is a concern to us as well. _We would appreciate_ your removing the coordinates for the virtual caches at the Devil's Backbone Open Space

from your website."_

QUOTE]

Actually this is the second letter I've received from the Parks Dept. I just ignorned the first person!! Permission was given for a Traditional Cache in another park, but out of the Blue they changed their minds. And the Cache Owner had an unproductive meeting with them. And he was one of their park volunteers. Incidentally he is not doing any service for them for free anymore. There were 3 Caches involved, two were traditional and one was a virtual. I believe one has been archived, the other one I rescued (for another cache owner) and re-planted it way back in the hills. And the virtual has been edited to clarify staying on the trails. The only coordinates are for the parking lot, everything else they have to find is their bridges, and trail markers and known landmarks. Since I teach LNT I do understand where they are coming from about irresponsible people tromping all over the place. And that is why the majority of my caches are virtuals, the traditional ones, active and archived have been too difficult for many a cacher because they are back in and up the mountain.

As to asking Permission - Does anybody ask the Fish & Game Dept of their respective local area permission to tell a friend where a good fishing hole is?

 

The "Bushwhacker"

needs_a_shave.gif

Exitus acta probat

>>--->

Link to comment

Cachew, we think alike sometimes.

 

If someone acting on "presumed authority" pulled one of my caches, I would consider that a challenge to hide it better.........

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

I understand your point that land managers should attempt to protect their lands, but I don't follow your logic to the conclusion that we should immediately accede to any request from a land manager to remove a virtual cache from managed land.


This is what worries me. You are not alone in this thinking. It seems people feel entitled to place a cache wherever they want. If someone questions the placement, they feel empowered to keep it in place at risk of giving up freedom. I view removing unwelcome virtual caches as a public relations policy. When I say that in America, everyone has a right to be a d**k, I mean no disrespect. My point is that no one will stop you from encouraging "bushwhackers" from clearing cat tails from a wetland to reach a tupperware container, but if those who are responsible for the cat tails ask you to stop, it's better for everyone that you do stop.

 

If you disagree with the request, by all means, challenge it by arranging a meeting with the person and present your case ... they'll present theirs.

 

This thread makes me sad. I have a feeling that the majority of the posts here do not represent the general geocaching attitude. If I'm wrong about that, I'll have to reconsider my involvement.

Link to comment

DisQuoi,

 

I'm with you. There are much better ways of handling this than "I'm gonna do it anyway."

 

I think a well-worded letter outlining the statistics involving the cache in question (namely, 6 visitors in 6 months) could be presented in person to someone there at the park, and a discussion should be started.

 

Possibly this person won't listen. If that's the case, go higher up.

 

But it's likely that they will realize that geocaching isn't so bad after all.

 

Sure, going through this is more work, but it helps out geocaching as a whole much more than just putting your cache where you like and ignoring polite requests (right or wrong) of land managers.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

Thanks, Jamie. I needed to know I wasn't having a nightmare here. Can someone who represents geocaching.com please chime in and reconcile this thread with the policy of the site? Are virtual caches excluded from the requirement to have permission from the parks? ... and if no permission was sought in the first place, does a request from teh park (in writing) warrant removal or should we "take it to the Supreme Court"?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DisQuoi:

quote:
Originally posted by Bushwhacker:

Are you ready for a good line of govermental *ull*hit! This is the letter I received from the county this afternoon. icon_razz.gif


 

Meegan Flenniken's job is to protect the park from abuse and damage.


 

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

 

Meegan Flenniken's job is to find ways for the public to use the parks for the activities they desire, AND to protect the park from abuse and damage.

 

They could protect the dadgum park from abuse and damage very simply - just forbid anyone visiting the park. I think we can all agree that would be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

 

The question is not whether to protect the land from abuse, the question is how to protect it from abuse while also allowing reasonable use.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DisQuoi:

You are not alone in this thinking. It seems people feel entitled to place a cache wherever they want.


 

Whoa there, boy! I do not believe that we are entitled to put virtual caches anywhere we want! Please do not place words in my mouth!

 

I am one of the only people I know who has (a) asked for permission to place virtual caches, and (:cool: chosen to not place a virtual cache after asking permission.

 

Each case must be taken on its merits.

 

Here are a few examples of the range of possibilities:

 

A land manager responsible for a park asks for removal of a physical cache.

 

A land manager asks for removal of a virtual cache that is located in a portion of the park that is closed to the general public.

 

A land manager of an off-road park asks for removal of a virtual cache for safety reasons.

 

--- Here's where I draw my line ---

 

A land manager asks for removal of a virtual cache from a portion of the park that is accessible to (and meant to be used by) the general public.

 

Some lackey at the EPA decides that geocaching is contributing to global warming and requests that all caches of every type be removed from Federal lands.

 

Somebody at the World Wildlife Federation decides geocaching is a threat to the environment and issues a press release demanding that all caches be removed worldwide.

 

Joe Wacko from Arkansas decides that geocaching is attracting evil aliens to the planet and writes a letter to the editor asking that all geocaches be removed from everywhere.

 

If you insist on making this an all-or-nothing issue, then you would be forced to draw your line below the last example. But it's not an all-or-nothing issue, and judgment is required.

 

For this particular case, in which a land manager asked (in a very snotty way, I might add) that a virtual cache be removed from a spot that is accessible to the general public, I feel that acceding to the request is inappropriate. But please do not characterize my position (or that of anyone else in this thread) as advocating placing virtual caches wherever we d*mn well please.

 

I also do not advocate ignoring the requests from land managers; I agree with DisQuoi that a dialog with them is the best thing. It's possible that, after further discussion, both parties would agree that removing the cache is the best thing, and then I would advocate its removal. My position is that in this case, removing the cache before undertaking a dialog would not be appropriate.

 

Just for the sake of information: can anyone cite a case in which a virtual cache was removed from a park at the request of authorities, who then after discussion decided it was OK after all and allowed it to be reinstated? From my experience with bureaucrats, I am willing to bet that this has never happened.

 

[This message was edited by fizzymagic on August 31, 2002 at 10:47 AM.]

Link to comment

One thing to consider, the 6 logs in 6 months - that only shows how many people successfully completed this virtual cache... it doesn't say anything about the people who just went there because of the cache listing, but decided not to find all the signs and answer all the questions.

 

There could have been many more than 6 geocaching.com inspired people tromping around the woods there. icon_smile.gif

 

- Toe.

 

--==< Rubbertoe's WEBCAM >==--

Link to comment

If asked by an authority (proof must be provided) that I remove my cache, be it real (tupperware, ammo, etc) or virtual, I would do so. However, I think I would take it a bit further. I would request a meeting with the person, take my case to him (esp about the virtual). I would ask what the objections were, and if I did not like them and could not sway him, well.... everyone answers to someone. I move up the chain.

 

Thank goodness I have not had to do that, yet. I am working my way up to get permission to place one (at the suggestion of the park super). She does not like the idea, but the decision is the park boards (which she has at least two votes in her pocket already).

 

Now, there is an exception to every rule. The only time I would not remove a virtual is IF it were already on an established and published trail.

 

Bear & Ting

 

I thought I was a little off, then I looked at my GPS and discovered I accurate to 12 ft.

 

Geocachers don't NEED to ask for directions!

Link to comment

I am new to all of this geocaching but I have to say I am amazed at the attitudes of some of the people here. Just because someone that has some minor level of authority asks (tells) you to do something you do. Hello! I am not going to jump on the 1st amendment bandwagon but these people are no different than you. They have a job that also gives them some bit of ability to tell people what to do. And they abuse it because nobody would listen to them otherwise. They hope you will rollover and try to play nice. Do you really think you will be able to convince these people to change their minds? From what I have seen in their letter they offer no proof that geocachers have done any damage. Just that they have left the trail. If they leave the trail and go in to an area that is marked that one should not go into then yes that is wrong. Do they know that everybody walking around with a GPS was a geocacher? Is it possible these people were trying to find their way back to the car? A virtual cache is different than a traditional one. Do not remove a virtual cache. You did not place it. It is there. If you post the coordinates or not it will still be there. I agree that people should not be stumbling in areas that are posted off limits. I will assume there are good reasons for that. But if I am walking down a trail and think something looks interesting off trail then why can’t I go look at it. Then I post on a website about whatever it is that I found interesting and encourage people to go look at it. What is the problem? Yes those lands do belong to all of us. And the people there are to protect those lands so that others may use them. But geocaching or not if I want to leave the trail to look at something and there is no reason for me to not do so I will. That is the reason the park is there. What is so difficult to understand about that? Are the designated trails a natural feature? They were put there by somebody to take people through the area. Why go through the area if you can’t fully explore it? I fully understand the need to protect areas because of a delicate balance or other reason that I may not be aware of. But short of that tax dollars from all of us are spent to keep these areas there for us to enjoy as we see fit. Not to pay salaries of people, in this case one person, to tell a group they can not use the park for the purpose it is there for which is to explore, learn something and enjoy it. If the real concern is to protect the environment then put a big fence around the area and don’t put in parking lots, picnic areas, concession stands, playgrounds, etc. None of those features are naturally occurring. And I think they did a lot more damage to the environment then any number of people walking through the woods will ever be able to do. Wake up, these are people on a power trip. And to be honest I am saddened by statements of people just rolling over and letting government do what they want. But this really has become the prevailing attitude since Sept. 11th. How many times have your heard people say well we just are going to have to give up some of our rights. WRONG! They are not your rights to give up. They belong to all of us and I don’t want anybody making a choice about what rights to give up for me. Too many people have fought and died for me to have those rights. And it is our responsibility to pass those rights on to those that come after us. In the end I would say make a note for people to stay on trail if that is appropriate and to obey all posted restrictions should it be necessary to leave the trail. I would guess geocachers are not the only ones leaving the trails for whatever reasons.

Link to comment

I have an idea tha would solve this dilemma for the "Authourities".

 

The "Authorities" are a government agency, the satelites are Govenment owned...so they just draft a policy that makes any area they are concerned about deemed to be a 'no satellite area'. Here's how the proposal could read -

 

Any satellites, passing/travelling through the portion/arc of their respective orbital paths which brings them to within a detectable/GPSr obtainable position from within any Federally and/or Nationally owned and/or managed lands or properties, shall power down (cease to transmit) any signals or transmittions that may be used to determine or obtain a fixed or mobile position on or within the boundries of said lands, for the offending duration of the satellites above mentioned orbital tract.

 

That way nobody with a GPSr can use it in these areas and therefore Geocaching can not be linked with any ecological damage done.

 

A cheaper takeoff on the same idea is to build a dome of aluminum foil over the areas, thereby blocking SAT. reception to GPSr's.

 

I think this might really be the answer!!!!

 

GPSr's...A step in the right direction!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MedicP1:

Any satellites, passing/travelling through the portion/arc of their respective orbital paths which brings them to within a detectable/GPSr obtainable position from within any Federally and/or Nationally owned and/or managed lands or properties, shall power down (cease to transmit) any signals or transmittions that may be used to determine or obtain a fixed or mobile position on or within the boundries of said lands, for the offending duration of the satellites above mentioned orbital tract.


 

Again, I just want to say THANK YOU, finally somebody who understands GPS! Your idea for shutting down the satelites is EXCELLENT and EASY for the government to accomplish. Anybody who knows anything about how GPS works will agree with this. Bravo!

Link to comment

Next do we have to register our GPSr???Just joking. (We are the Government)if people only understood this we could accomplish our goals more smoothly.If you feel strongly enough about the issue pursue it to your satisfaction,we all can't have everything that we want or there would be nothing left!!!!So far here the State,and Federal Parks have enjoyed the increase in tourism from this web site. There are a lot of hard heads out there we just have to soften it up a little. As to the fact of turning or blocking the signals for any point this is already a capability of the systems,it can even give you false readings around High priority Installations,as far as the Park Services, maybe you can refer them to Executive order 12906 see at http://www.fgdc.gov (all are suppose to be getting the data sets), this would be something that you may bring to their attention!!! Many Happy Geotrails

This is a perfect place to hone and use our skills, and protect the Nation,(INHOME)I have lots of things that I could bring up about the Public Lands and have in other threads,but I tend to use the Energy Consructively.

When all else fails Geotry again.

 

[This message was edited by Trailblazer # 1 on November 12, 2002 at 09:02 AM.]

Link to comment

There is no official stance at geocaching.com on virtual cache removal. I guess if we have a current policy it is to inform the user of the rules of the park if we hear from the park authority. If the location is of a place that is tresspassing (or known to be of danger or peril) we will remove it from the site so people won't get hurt or arrested.

 

My own personal opinion is that it's pretty hard to remove something that isn't there. I also believe that because we have targets pasted on our backs (as in we publicly post what we're doing), we tend to get attacked for a lot of things that happen in the parks that have nothing to do with the casual geocacher. It's easier to ban something you see then locate the actual problem.

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Link to comment

Weighing in on this issue, FWIW. I have to agree with the more pacifist minded opinions expressed here. Going to war with a bureaucracy that has been created legally (with YOUR VOTES, I might add) to oversee public lands is fruitless, and in the end damaging to the reputation of this sport/game that we all love. Geocaching is new, which means change, which is anathema to any bureaucracy. Let's take it slowly here, and let's try focusing on the successes rather than the defeats. I've seen many more threads about cache placements denied & removed than success stories about working together with the various land management agencies. Instead of flaming the land managers who oppose our cache placements, lets post the email addresses of those managers who DO support us. Let them know what a great bunch of people we are, that we'll remove far more trash from their land than we deliver. These are the people we want to talk to, because then the good word will spread as land managers across the country come to a consensus on the sport. Contrast this with the land manager who gets nastygrams - which approach is likely to yield more caching opportunities down the road?

NOw take a good look at these forums....lets say you are on the board for a protected area, and you have a request from someone to place a cache. You know nothing about geocaching, but being the thorough and thoughtful board member that you are (let's hope!) you look over the geocaching website to see what it's all about. What do you find? Threats, complaints and a general attitude of *I can do whatever I dadgum well please cuz I'm a geocacher*. I don't hold out much hope for that request getting approved.

Another approach: the local mountain bike community here was getting a bad reputation for hogging trails, scaring hikers, and generally behaving badly. When the land manager of the favorite local trails announced that they would be banning bicycling if nothing was done, the bikers organized, met with the land managers, and worked out a compromise. The most popular hiking trails are now off limits to bikes, but permission was granted to cut single track in formerly trailless areas. On the roads, where most of the complaints of people vs. bikes were generated, a bikes-only lane was created. In addition to all this the bikers volunteered to ride the trails and serve as "rangers", alerting other bikers to the rules and regs, and eduacting them on the proper use of the facility. Bikers and hikers coexist peacefully now, but it wasn't easy.

The point of all this is that we may face opposition, but when we receive a respectfully worded request to remove a cache, as was presented in this case, we should comply. We should then immediately follow up with a detailed plan of action that addresses each and every one of their concerns and emphasizes the benefits that will come to their facility as a result of allowing placement of a cache. And we need to get the word out to cache placers about the rules and regs particular to this place such as staying on the trail.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by ZingerHead:

Weighing in on this issue, FWIW. I have to agree with the more pacifist minded opinions expressed here. Going to war with a bureaucracy that has been created legally (with YOUR VOTES, I might add) to oversee public lands is fruitless, and in the end damaging to the reputation of this sport/game that we all love.


 

I really can't add anymore than this:

 

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

From that radical document the Declaration of Independence.

 

Those who wish to rollover and subject themselves to any whim the government wishes to pile on them -- fine. But I hope some of us really still understand what this country was founded on. A government for, of and by the people.

Link to comment

I read this thread with great interest. Have I missed something? Has anyone actually SPOKEN with this Meegan? Someone mentioned that the letter may have been snooty. My biggest pet peave is people taking the incorrect tone, from written correspondance, whether its email or otherwise. I find it impossible to detect tone in emails. Isn't that why these things originated? icon_razz.gificon_confused.gificon_smile.gificon_frown.gifWhat harm can it do to call this women and explain/defend your view in regards to the cache? The worse that can happen, is she still asks for its removal. On the other side, you may find that she is willing to make concessions. As I read the above posts, it just seems like the cart is being put before the horse. Thank you.

 

AchStone

Link to comment

Meetings that went nowhere were held with the authorites. They still insisted that the coordinates for the Cache be removed from the web. Which I did, now all you have to do is walk the path and give the coordinates of the trail markers. An additional traditional cache has been placed in one of the parks, and the owner was informed about the trouble and decision of the agency. And the owner has left the cache there, so far nothing has been heard from the county, since the meeting.

One of the Caches in question was removed and replanted in a safe locale, the other was pulled and not replanted as of this date.

 

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...