Removal of caches from the Lake Tahoe Desolation Wilderness

5.9k · October 23, 2002

No no no, it's not that "I" think the caches are illegal. But if some want to believe they are I'll argue from that viewpoint. My argument is the idea that one player should place themself in the position of judging and/or removing another's cache is WRONG. They should mind their own business.

This is really the last time.

If your house catches afire, and there ain?t no water around,

Throw your jelly out the window; let the dog-gone shack burn down.

**Huddie Ledbetter**

1.5k · October 23, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by TahoeJoe:
Ski3pin is not an employee of The National Forest Service and therefore has no right to remove these caches. If I did volunteer work for the police department, does that give me the authority to go out and give tickets to people jay walking or littering?

Okay - just because you aren't "officially" in charge of something, does that mean you wouldn't take action? Like, you aren't a cop - but if you saw some kids spraypainting the side of a shelter at a local park - wouldn't you stop them? Would you just let them do what they were doing, because it isn't "officially" any of your business?

Now - I'm just getting started in this thread, so I don't know if what Ski3pin is saying is true, but if there is some policy that bans caches in those locations, I don't think it matters who removes them. If they are there, and it is against the rules/policy/law - then chances are the caches were placed without permission. It'd be nice if Ski3pin would recycle the caches/contents, if not just give them back to the owner... but if you place a cache without getting permission, this is just another one of the results that you might get.

But regardless, your argument that someone shouldn't do something about a perceived problem unless "officially" responsible to do so - that's just silly.

quote:
Originally posted by criminal:
Am I understanding this correctly? The ski-folks went on the geocaching website and discovered that there were caches hidden in a park where they volunteer their time. They inform park officials who authorize them to remove the caches or containers. So now they are deputized to judge the correctness of other people’s geocaches?

BULLSH*T!

You've gotta be kidding me. If the caches WERE placed somewhere without asking, and if it really IS against their rules/policy - then if the people in charge send someone out to pick up those caches, there is nothing wrong with it. If I owned 100 acres of land and someone put their caches on it, and I asked a friend to go pick them up and throw them out - that'd be fine. Just because this is a "public" area, people think they can do whatever they want. If it is against their rules, then people have to deal with it. Like I said, I don't know if it really is against one of their policies... but if it IS, and that is why the caches have been removed - then it doesn't matter who did it, because it was going to be done by someone sooner or later.

quote:
Originally posted by TahoeJoe:
This is not your yard we are talking about but land which is designated for the public to enjoy. Mr. Snazz you have people camp out on your yard? Your gardener must not being a very good job.

Another example of people who don't understand... yes, it is public land in that people can go there and do things, but they still have rules, policies, regulations - and people DO have to follow those rules. I'm amazed when people can't grasp that concept. Yes, it is public... but there are still rules, and if the powers-that-be say "get rid of the caches" then the caches will go.

The Toe Pages

1.5k · October 23, 2002

I've never seen so much name calling over something as I've seen in this thread. Do-gooder, busybody, tightwad, theiving, disgusting, turkey, uppity, pompous, self-righteous, jerk, granola chomping, hippie, tree hugger, etc...

To me, it seems pretty simple. If what Ski3pin says is true, and if they were really told by "someone in charge" that they wanted those caches removed - then they did nothing that anyone can really be upset about.

Most of my caches are placed without permission, and I understand that if someone decides that they should be removed - then it is my loss for not asking first. It doesn't seem that this situation is so much different from that.

Someone said that park rangers have effectively given permission by not taking action against all caches hidden there - but that is really stretching it. Police don't stop EVERY car that is speeding, but that sure doesn't mean that speeding isn't really breaking the law. Just because some rangers overlook caches placed without permission, it doesn't mean that people can place a cache anywhere they want.

From everything I've read here, it looks like the powers-that-be consider caches to be against policy, and they've had somebody pick a few of them up. That's just the breaks, folks. It'd be nice if they'd have given the owners a chance to claim them instead, but from what I see here it doesn't look like these folks would have volunterily re-claimed or moved those caches.

Oh, and the "I know a ranger, and he said it was okay..." thing doesn't always work. I'd get it in writing, if you are gonna bother to get permission at all. And mention that in the cache description too, to discourage folks like Ski3pin from snatching it up.

quote:
Originally posted by brokenwing:
An analogy I've used before is that I don't have to specifically ask if it's OK to play frisbee in my local city park; why should I have to do so for geocaching?

Playing frisbee is a game. A game where you leave nothing behind. Comparing that to geocaching doesn't float with me, for the obvious reason that with geocaching you are leaving something behind when you go. This is something that might end up getting abandoned, or torn into, or otherwise somehow negatively affecting the park that it is placed in.

And, you can say that a geocache doesn't impact an area... but what if I want to place a cache the size of a small TV, or how about if I wanna place a cache the size of a couch? Of course you'd expect something of that size, left in a park, to be picked up and removed by the people in charge. Just because a geocache is small and placed with good intent, it doesn't make it okay to do without permission. You are leaving 'stuff' in an area where there are people responsible for the care of that area - I can't believe that we should all just assume that this is okay, and that we should never have to ask to hide a cache.

Of course, like I've said - many of mine are hidden without permission, but if they are ever picked up by someone in charge of that area - I'm just gonna suck it up and move along, since I realize that it was a risk I took.

The Toe Pages

(edit: mmm... evil post #666)

[This message was edited by Rubbertoe on October 23, 2002 at 11:35 PM.]

38.2k · October 24, 2002

quote:
I've never seen so much name calling over something as I've seen in this thread. Do-gooder, busybody, tightwad, theiving, disgusting, turkey, uppity, pompous, self-righteous, jerk, granola chomping, hippie, tree hugger, etc...

Hey, I came up with most of those names! Just goes to show ya how some people get pretty ticked off when someone goes around stealing geocaches under the vague pretext that they were asked to by some unnamed authority.

"Men don't stop playing because they get old, they get old because they stop playing" Oliver Wendell Holmes

3k · October 24, 2002

First off Rubbertoe is at 666 posts and thats a bit scary.

Second I think this whole concept of how a geocache effects nature in a negative way is a bit silly and I think that things that really matter can be found here.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Coming Around, New Owner Of a Garmin GPS V Received on 10-03-02

4.5k · October 24, 2002

"Oh mr. Policeman, I want to report a crime in progress"

"No kidding. wait a second while I take my Glock off of "safe". OK I'm ready, now where is this crime going on?"

"Well, you see that Ford pickup with the Geocaching sign in the window over there near the bank waiting at the curb."

"Yes I do. Are they holding the place up."

"No I don't think so but don't you notice how they're parked next to a "No Parking or Standing" sign. The nerve! How are the cleaning trucks going to get through to clean up the trash laying by the curb?"

"Hey you're absolutely right. Here, take one of my blank summons and fill it out and leave it on their windshield. I'm busy right now as I have to go arrest that guy over there who just littered the street with his gum wrapper."

3k · October 24, 2002

Glocks don't have a safety

______________________________________________________________________________________

Coming Around, New Owner Of a Garmin GPS V Received on 10-03-02

4.5k · October 24, 2002

quote:
Glocks don't have a safety

I knew that cop was screwed up. I wonder if he's related to the ranger? Hmmm.

Alan

3k · October 24, 2002

LMAO @ Alan,

Thats too funny man. About time some humor was brought to this thread.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Coming Around, New Owner Of a Garmin GPS V Received on 10-03-02

October 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rubbertoe:
Playing frisbee is a game. A game where you leave nothing behind. Comparing that to geocaching doesn't float with me, for the obvious reason that with geocaching you are leaving something behind when you go. This is something that might end up getting abandoned, or torn into, or otherwise somehow negatively affecting the park that it is placed in.

Sorry for the long post, but I think it's pretty funny that you, someone that does not ask for permission is arguing this point with me, someone that does. Is that backwards, or what?

Honestly, I have a feeling you must feel more like I do about this, or you would not place caches as you do. Perhaps I just did not explain my point of view on this very well. I'll try again:

It is my belief that we should not automatically assume that geocaching is a banned activity. There is no reason to assume my game (geocaching) is any different than any other game (for example frisbee), when it comes to the legality surrounding appropriate park usage. Why should I as a geocacher have any reason to think that geocaching IS different than any other activity played on public property? Leaving something behind has nothing to do with it unless there are specific prohibitions regarding leaving things on public property in a particular area. If there are such prohibitions, then by default, geocaching is not allowed and we know this. I think it’s important to be aware of such prohibitions in all the areas where you place caches. As a responsible cacher, I have read the applicable codes for all the areas we have caches. (By the way, I don’t believe abandoned property laws apply to geocaches, but I digress...)

Let me give you another example: As another activity that is sometimes banned, should skaters (skateboards, inline, and rollerskates) automatically assume that skating is banned in all places except where specifically allowed? Of course not. The correct assumption is that it is allowed unless specific prohibitions exist. It is up to them as responsible skaters to know where not to skate.

In case you have not figured it out yet, I’m stating all this in opposition to Criminal’s position that all geocaches are illegal unless specific permission has been granted. I disagree with that for the reasons stated above. My basic position is that all geocaches are legal unless known to be otherwise. As far as geocaching.com and the requirements for posting a cache, all caches are given the benefit of the doubt unless the admins know of some reason to be suspect.

I do believe that asking first is good policy and generally works to our advantage. This is not really in conflict with my statement above, because the way I approach approval is thus: “Dear land manager, I want to place a geocache in XYZ park and just wanted to insure you were aware of it. If you have any suggestions about placement I’d love to hear your ideas.” In this way they know about it and I feel I’ve covered my responsibility.

By the way, asking first is not a magic bullet to prevent cache removal. (Look I brought us back on topic!) Keep in mind that land managers have the ability to change policies on a whim. Even if specific written approval is obtained, nothing prevents them from changing their mind and revoking that permission. It’s possible that this was the case with the Wilderness Area caches that spawned this discussion.

Just my thoughts.

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

October 24, 2002

Forget all the accusations about lying and drop the name calling.

A year had past since the caches were placed (with purported oral permission). It is entirely possible that different rangers with the same authority as those who permitted the caches initially authorized the removal of said caches. See? tahoeberne and ski3pin could both be right.

To (very lightly) defend ski3pin, she was acting under the authority of the ranger service. This is not unprecedented. The land manager at the park where I attained permission to hide two caches was eager to allow me to write tickets for lesser infractions around the park that needed attention, but he was too busy taking care of the 'real criminals'. It's within their right to 'deputize' as necessary.

Really, my only theme in this whole barrage is that when ski3pin was asked to remove the caches by the rangers, she could have spent a little time communicating with the owners first.

Did she have the authority to remove them? I would say so. As a volunteer, acting on the instructions of a person with the authority to enforce and interpret rules, she was just 'obeying orders'.

Did she go out of her way to piss people off? The evidence is this thread... She could have done things different.

The end.

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

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

October 24, 2002

I have some experience working for the Forest Service so I'll add some of that wisdom here for what it's worth. A Forest district is composed of many people in many different departments. Those people are a slice of what we are seeing in this thread...some have opinions that are opposed and some would'nt care less (about geocaching in the wilderness). In my experience, just because you get some verbal permission from any one individual, It doesn't mean that is the final word on the subject. The district ranger does not spend the majority of his/her time in the wilderness or out in the woods (he/she is usually in the office or travelling or doing some sort of PR work) He/she leaves the management of the wilderness up to the head recreation manager and/or the people who do all the real work on the ground...wilderness rangers and/or trail crews. Unless there is a well defined policy that all employees are of aware of and must comply with, then asking any one of them for permission will get any result from "asolutely not" to "I don't care". And that brings me to my point...unless there is an official policy for a particular forest or wilderness, then it(allowance of geocache placement) is an open question and open answer to be freely iterpreted (saying this, I mean to interpret within existing rules or laws..ie. adapt the new sport of geocaching to existing regs.) and decided upon by the individual land manager on the ground...thus, If I were to go straight to the top of the ladder and ask a Forest supervisor (supervisor of the Tahoe NF for example) for permisssion to place a cache and he/she said no problem...I'm still not out of the woods (My cache is'nt even placed yet...? how did I even get into the woods? ) Unless the Forest supervisor sends that decision down the chain of command (usually via a memo), then no one knows about his/her verbal permission and then uses their own "opinioned"(yea or nea) based decision when confronted by your average permission asking geocacher. All that being said:

I still think it is very poor form to not notify cache owners and to just plunder away.

I hope I didn't enrage anyone with this post...I am just trying to explain how the system works (or doesn't)

-UA

...Proudly ranked 620th in the state of California!

20.7k · October 24, 2002

I guess I may have missed something, so be gentle on me.

The caches were removed. The owners were contacted and advised as to how they can recover the items. A post was made to the cache page explaining why it was done. Assuming that everything in Ski3pin's email is correct (and I see no reason not to), I don't really see a problem.

As I understand it, the owners of the caches haven't weighed in on this issue. Has anyone contacted them? Did they get the caches back?

Off topic;

Brokenwing- Welcome back to the forums.

2.6k · October 24, 2002

Would you mind if I dialed 911 if I saw you going 70 in a 65?

Called the cops because I heard you got a hummer in georgia?

Placed you under citizens arrest because you ripped the tags of the matress?

Took down you license if the meter expires and you haven't gotten a ticket yet?

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

20.7k · October 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:
Would you mind if I dialed 911 if I saw you going 70 in a 65?

Called the cops because I heard you got a hummer in georgia?

Placed you under citizens arrest because you ripped the tags of the matress?

Took down you license if the meter expires and you haven't gotten a ticket yet?

I actually could care less if you did any of those things, except arresting me for ripping the tags off my mattress. For the record, the actual verbiage on the tag is, "Under penalty of law, this tag may not be removed except by the consumer."

Would you consider it appropriate to complain to the police if someone often drives down your street too fast? I would.

October 24, 2002

These replies have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the topic at hand...

Would you mind if I dialed 911 if I saw you going 70 in a 65? No, but I WILL call 911 if I see a drunk driver

Called the cops because I heard you got a hummer in georgia? I don't know. Is it illegal to own a Hummer in Georgia?

Placed you under citizens arrest because you ripped the tags of the matress?If I wasn't the consumer, go for it.

Took down you license if the meter expires and you haven't gotten a ticket yet?If there's a cop around, and I can't get a space 'cause of the rascal, I'll let the cop know, sure!

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

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

2.6k · October 24, 2002

A geocache in the wilderness in NOT a drunk driver. It's more on the level of speeding or less so becaue there is no clear decision to wether it is legal or not.

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

October 24, 2002

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

I guess I may have missed something, so be gentle on me.

The caches were removed. The owners were contacted and advised as to how they can recover the items. A post was made to the cache page explaining why it was done. Assuming that everything in Ski3pin's email is correct (and I see no reason not to), I don't really see a problem.

As I understand it, the owners of the caches haven't weighed in on this issue. Has anyone contacted them? Did they get the caches back?

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

You are correct on all points above. I have emailed one of the cache owners and he has replied to me that he was notified by ski3pin that his cache was being held at the forest service station. As of this posting, I have not heard if he has picked up his cache, but we are staying in contact. I will post any new developments in this as soon as they occur.

Stay tuned....

TahoeBerne

David Berne

October 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:
Since she's taken 3 cacahes and has hidden three caches, some one should take her 3 caches and place them where the ones she took were.

george

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/39570_400.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

I know I am a little behind in this...but this sounds like an idea to me.

If there is something to B17ch about I'll make sure you're the first to know.

October 24, 2002

I think this lady misses the entire point of the GeoNote that says, "If this container needs to be removed for any reason, please let us know. We apologize, and will be happy to move it".

Maybe we should each send her one e-mail with this quote in it. How many of us are there anyway???

If there is something to B17ch about I'll make sure you're the first to know.

October 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by VentureForth:
Called the cops because I heard you got a hummer in georgia? I don't know. Is it illegal to own a Hummer in Georgia?

I don't think it's illegal to OWN a hummer in Georgia, but it used to be illegal to GET a hummer!

October 24, 2002

If all else fails, go virtual!

There are hundreds of awesome places for virtual caches in Desolation Wilderness.

They can't be stolen.

4.5k · October 24, 2002

“What’s that minnow bucket doing in the garbage truck, Jim?”

“Well Chief you told me to pick up all trash. So that’s what I’ve been doing.”

“Trash? Since when are minnow buckets trash? Did you see those poor shiners flopping around on the bottom for heaven sake? They’re all gasping for air.”

“I thought you told me to get rid of all abandoned property. Well it was just lying there in the water with a rock sitting on top. It didn’t even have and ID or anything.”

“Well some fisherman really is going to be ticked off when he gets back here. Go put it back right away. We don’t need some well-connected big shot complaining to his congressman that we’re not letting him fish or that we’re accusing him of messing up some pristine waters with litter. What else have you been picking up lately?"

“Funny you should ask. About ten feet away from the minnow bucket I found this ammo box. Maybe the fisherman was going to shoot bass? Hmm. Well anyway, I opened it up and it was full of little bibles and other religious tracks. Very suspicious stuff if you ask me especially inside an ammo can."

“Well I’m not going to ask what you did with that or touch this whole subject with a ten-foot pole. That’s all I need. First the fisherman and now the geocachers will be on my back. Boy what I would give for some ATV-er tearing up the trails right about now.”

1.5k · October 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Fallen:
I think this lady misses the entire point of the GeoNote that says, "If this container needs to be removed for any reason, please let us know. We apologize, and will be happy to move it".

Heh - just because a printed form letter says it, it doesn't mean it is true. I think most people, if approached and told that their cache had to be removed, wouldn't be apologetic and/or happy about removing it.

From the way it looks in this thread, it should read something like "If this container needs to be removed for any reason, you can just kiss my rosey red ***! I'll put my caches where I want, and unless you show me the written law that says I can't, I'm not moving ****!"

The Toe Pages

October 24, 2002

Have read all of the above, and think that ski should be ashamed of her/himself. Not very sporting. Seems to me to be a case of "If I can do it and get away with it, I'm doing it." Not much honor there.

I've come up with a label for my caches and stick it on all that I hide. The text is:

OFFICIAL GEOCACHE GAME PIECE

This is NOT abandoned property!

It has been placed here as part of the worldwide game known as Geocaching and is the personal property of a participant.

Do not disturb it or steal it!

For further information go to: www.geocaching.com

or contact XXXXXX@hotmail.com

My .02 and works for me.

1.5k · October 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Da Rebel:
This is NOT abandoned property!

It has been placed here as part of the worldwide game known as Geocaching and is the personal property of a participant.

Do not disturb it or steal it!

For further information go to: http://www.geocaching.com

or contact XXXXXX@hotmail.com

Can I use that note for the 10x10 storage shed that I'm planning to build in the deschutes national forest?

October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
Can I use that note for the 10x10 storage shed that I'm planning to build in the deschutes national forest?

Yes, But you'll need to pay him $.50 per shed for royalties.

Doug

October 25, 2002

quote:
I actually could care less if you did any of those things, except arresting me for ripping the tags off my mattress. For the record, the actual verbiage on the tag is, "Under penalty of law, this tag may not be removed except by the consumer."
.

So if you eat the tags it's o.k.??

You can't be lost if you don't care where you are.

38.2k · October 25, 2002

quote:
This is NOT abandoned property!
It has been placed here as part of the worldwide game known as Geocaching and is the personal property of a participant.

I like that. I think I'll add it to my Geocaching letters. Not that it would mean a thing to a park ranger, or self-appointed cache cop.

"Men don't stop playing because they get old, they get old because they stop playing" Oliver Wendell Holmes

4.5k · October 25, 2002

The ID with email address and web page should be in all caches so you can be found if there's a problem with the cache. I use them in my caches. But to think we need ID's to "prove" caches aren't not abandoned property is a "straw man" and just an excuse some people are using to stop caching.

As my little story with the rangers attempted to point out, no one but a moron would consider a minnow bucket sitting in the water with a rock on top as abandoned property. Calling caches abandoned property is just an excuse to ban them when there are no other prohibitions. If a park wishes to prohibit these, as in National Parks, then they should have a specific prohibition, that's all. Otherwise cachers should have the same rights as fishermen.

Alan

October 25, 2002

Just another chime in - sorry if it just repeats what other, way more experienced people have said:

Caches are almost by definition hostages to fortune. The world is full of people with different viewpoints to those we hold ourselves. We have to accept that in certain areas where peoples values, (wilderness/ sport/ hunting/ urbanisation/profit) collide, our caches may end up victims of someone elses viewpoint.

If you were a busy ranger with a new policy, viewpoint or opinion to uphold around geocaching, who would you get to remove caches on your land - a sympathetic geocacher? That person being a geocacher would know that simple removal might upset people, so she logs the removal and informs the cacher. Tough, if you hold the viewpoint that your caches are your personal property and you have an inalienable right to place them. But where really is the complaint.

When does a cache cease to be the property of the cacher and become a hostage to fortune and other people's viewpoints?

Kapman

October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rubbertoe:
Heh - just because a printed form letter says it, it doesn't mean it is true. I think most people, if approached and told that their cache had to be removed, wouldn't be apologetic and/or happy about removing it.

I guess I will speak for myself then. If someone asked me to move or remove a cache because it is on private property or somewhere where it shouldn't be I wouldn't mind moving it at all.

If there is something to B17ch about I'll make sure you're the first to know.

October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
Can I use that note for the 10x10 storage shed that I'm planning to build in the deschutes national forest?

Comparing a cache to a storage shed is pointless. One is a permanent structure and one is something that can easily be moved.

A better analogy may be this: When you go into a National Forest and park your car at a trailhead, do you have a reasonable expectation that it's going to be there when you get back? Just because you left your car behind, does not mean that you didn't want it anymore. Parking my car and walking away from it does not grant anyone that comes along the right to take it.

In my view, caches are no different. Any cache I place is my property. If it's placed (parked) illegally, let me know and I'll move it.

Just my thoughts,

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

1.5k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Brokenwing:
Comparing a cache to a storage shed is pointless. One is a permanent structure and one is something that can easily be moved.

Ok, how about a 5x3x3 storage locker? Those are easy to move. I'd really like to leave my stuff out in the woods, I don't see why anybody would have a problem with that. Its public land, after all, so I should be able to do whatever I want, without any respect for the established policies of the land.

If 5x3x3 is too large, I have a smaller 3x2x2 locker which would work, I'll just place two of them a mile or so apart.

October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Brokenwing:
Parking my car and walking away from it does not grant anyone that comes along the right to take it.

Unless, of course, you are parked in a no-parking zone.... Then a tow-truck will come and take it away without telling you, AND the tow truck driver ISN'T a cop, just acting on the direction of the police.

Someone once said that every person has already broken one law or another.

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

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

20.7k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Freelens & Mosie:
So if you eat the tags it's o.k.??

HA! It took me a second, but I got it!

20.7k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Brokenwing:
A better analogy may be this: When you go into a National Forest and park your car at a trailhead, do you have a reasonable expectation that it's going to be there when you get back? Just because you left your car behind, does not mean that you didn't want it anymore. Parking my car and walking away from it does not grant anyone that comes along the right to take it.

In my view, caches are no different. Any cache I place is my property. If it's placed (parked) illegally, let me know and I'll move it.

I like your analogy, but I disagree with your conclusion. If I left my car parked at the trailhead for too long, overnight perhaps, the ranger may have it towed without asking me to move it.

October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
Ok, how about a 5x3x3 storage locker? Those are easy to move. I'd really like to leave my stuff out in the woods, I don't see why anybody would have a problem with that. Its public land, after all, so I should be able to do whatever I want, without any respect for the established policies of the land.

If 5x3x3 is too large, I have a smaller 3x2x2 locker which would work, I'll just place two of them a mile or so apart.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but no one, least of all me, is arguing that anyone has the right to do anything without regard to established policies. The point I've been making is that when there is not a specific policy against something, I have a reasonable expectation that it should be allowed. I also expect that if I am within the law in leaving something behind, (whether it's a cache, my car, or anything else) I expect that others will respect my property. Can you please re-state your point in simpler terms so I can understand?

quote:
Originally posted by VentureForth:
Unless, of course, you are parked in a no-parking zone.... Then a tow-truck will come and take it away without telling you, AND the tow truck driver ISN'T a cop, just acting on the direction of the police.

If my car (or cache) is illegally placed, then I have no reason to complain if it has been removed in a lawful manner. I do still expect to have it returned to me, however. In the case of a car, keep in mind also that towing is not often the first step. It is much more common to first receive a ticket or even just a warning and if it's not dealt with in a reasonable amount of time, it may be towed. Towing is generally reserved for more serious offenses, or safety or access considerations. i.e if I block someone in, then my car may be towed.

One final point: I also expect that no parking areas will be clearly marked or that there will be a general ban from parking somewhere that I am made aware of in some other manner. I expect the same when caching. I can tell you that if I got an email from my boss that said: "oh, by the way, we just towed your car because we decided we didn't like you parking there." I'd be pretty ticked off. I've been parking in the same spot for the past year or so, and there is no sign telling me not to park there. I was told at one point that this particular spot WAS where I was to park, and have never been told that I should not be parking there.

Do you see the similarities to what happened with these caches?

It's one thing if you change your policy and tell me not to park in that spot anymore. It's quite another to tow my car first and then tell me it's not allowed.

Thanks,

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

1.5k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Brokenwing:
Can you please re-state your point in simpler terms so I can understand?

I'll try:

We need to introduce a little additional notation and terminology to explain this more precisely. Let S(N) be the (vector) space of cusp forms for (N) of weight 2. "Classical" theory of modular forms shows that S(N) can be identified with the space of "holomorphic differentials" on the Riemann surface X(N). Furthermore, the dimension of S(N) is finite and equal to the "genus" of X(N). "Genus" is a standard topological property of surfaces, which is intuitively the number of holes in the surface. (E. g. a torus, such as an elliptic curve, has genus 1.)

Ok, so, there are certain operators called Hecke operators, after Erich Hecke, on spaces of modular forms, and for the subspace S(N) in particular, since they preserve the weight of a form. Hecke operators can be defined concretely in various ways. There is a Hecke operator T(n) for all n 1. There are formulas that relate T(n) for composite n to T(p) where is a prime dividing n, so T(p) for prime p determine all T(n).

This relates to NFS policy in that it can be shown that if f(z) is a cusp form which is a normalized eigenfunction for all T(p), then there is an Euler product decomposition for the L-function L(f,s). This is obviously of great technical usefulness in relating L-functions of forms and those of elliptic curves (which are Euler products by definition).

Next, we invoke the "unusual" properties of the Frey curve resulting from a solution of FLT. These properties allow it to be shown that the associated Galois representation has the properties required to apply Ribet's result.

Hence the Frey curve can't be modular, and if you leave something for an extended period of time on land which you do not directly manage, you can't reasonably expect it to be there when you return.

October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

quote:
Originally posted by Brokenwing:
Can you please re-state your point in simpler terms so I can understand?

I'll try:

We need to introduce a little additional notation and terminology to explain this more precisely. Let S(N) be the (vector) space of cusp forms for....

yada, yada, yada.

I was enjoying standing in the wings watching this thread roll along. When it got to this point I felt compelled to throw my hat into the ring as well. Many of the contributors here have been derailing this argument intentionally and unintentionally. The facts are simply that there are fuzzy regulations regarding the placement of these caches, permission was not explicit and in writing, there are established guidelines for shutting a cache down. The fuzzy rules were enforced by a player that should have known the explicit guidelines for shutting down a cache but chose to ignore them. I see no point of law that can be applied, this is simply a matter of ethics. MHO. Go on with the fascinating arguement.

October 25, 2002

Tahoeberne and myself started this thread because of our frustration with Ski3pin taking it upon themselves to act as the geopolice and remove caches from Desolation Wilderness. Tahoeberne contacted the three owners by e-mail and found out where the caches were taken to also talked to the Resource Manager of the Forest Service which overlooks the wilderness area where the caches were remove. He said the official policy on geocaches in wilderness areas is that they are not allowed but, the Forest Service does not actively go out looking for them and removing them. He said that he even goes geocaching. He also said that geocaching should be kept low keyed or that it could create problems in the future not only in wilderness areas but also on any Forest Service land. After Tahoeberne talked to the Resource Manager we realize that Ski3pin acted on their own to remove the caches and acted like they had the authority from the US Forest Service to go out and remove them. I hope that Ski3pin has not set the wheels in motion for the Forest Service to change their policy to actively search and remove geocaches from all NFS land. Let's hope this is not the case. Tahoeberne and I will continue to promote the positive of geocaching to the NFS when problems like this arise. As for Ski3pin I would like to see them promote geocaching also and place the geocaches back where they belong. I also feel that the owe an apology to the geocaching community for what they have done.

TahoeJoe

1.5k · October 25, 2002

For them predicted long,

For a superber race, they too to grandly fill their time,

For them we abdicate, in them ourselves ye forest kings.'

In them these skies and airs, these mountain peaks, Shasta, Nevadas,

These huge precipitous cliffs, this amplitude, these valleys, far Yosemite,

To be in them absorb'd, assimilated.

- Walt Whitman

38.2k · October 25, 2002

quote:
He also said that geocaching should be kept low keyed or that it could create problems in the future not only in wilderness areas but also on any Forest Service land.

I can't imagine an activity that is more low key than Geocaching. You hide a small box in the woods and once or twice a month, someone comes to look for it. It's low key, at least until someone starts making a big deal about it to the authorities.

quote:
After Tahoeberne talked to the Resource Manager we realize that Ski3pin acted on their own to remove the caches and acted like they had the authority from the US Forest Service

This has been my contention all along.

quote:
He said the official policy on geocaches in wilderness areas is that they are not allowed but, the Forest Service does not actively go out looking for them and removing them.

This implies at least tacit approval from the local authorities. If they felt it was a serious issue, they would be actively pursuing the removal of them. It appears instead that they know about the caches, but look the other way. This is the way many land mangers are dealing with Geocaching. They figure it isn't hurting anything and is a healthy outdoor activity, so they ignore the presence of the caches on "their" land. This is until the caches become a problem for them. A problem can be the result of irresponsible geocachers, or because some busybody starts making a stink about them.

"Men don't stop playing because they get old, they get old because they stop playing" Oliver Wendell Holmes

October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
A cache owner who’s pissed because someone stole their container goes to Taco Bell, eats fifteen burritos, and then fills the thief’s cache with a big surprise. Woof-poof, new feuds!

Criminal, would that be trading up or down?

I mean it is a Taco BOWEL prize and all.

And they wouldn't have to leave any note in the log book, as they already left a DIARRHEA their visit.

And do they get to LOG their visit?

Seriously folks, did they people whos caches were taken get notified by the Forestry service as was stated in Ski-stormtrooper's letter, which said they would? I mean if Ski's actions were on the up and up and acting under the authority of the Forestry staff, then that should have been the natural outcome.

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

1.5k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by MedicP1:
Seriously folks, did they people whos caches were taken get notified by the Forestry service as was stated in Ski-_stormtrooper_'s letter, which said they would?

Are you saying that ski3pin is a nazi soldier?

5.9k · October 25, 2002

I thought this whole thing was about the removing of a cache without notification to the owner and was done by a fellow cacher after they informed the forest rangers the cache was there. I also was under the assumption that he rangers had given tacit and/or verbal approval.

Remember this and thisand this? It's nothing new. As usual we get few details. Happily, these sorts of things are the exception. Who knows............?

If your house catches afire, and there ain?t no water around,

Throw your jelly out the window; let the dog-gone shack burn down.

**Huddie Ledbetter**

[This message was edited by Criminal on October 25, 2002 at 01:44 PM.]

20.7k · October 25, 2002

I completely agree with Brian.

I'm as shocked as you are. (Just kidding.)

20.7k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
Are you saying that ski3pin is a _nazi_ soldier?

No, man. Stormtroopers are those guys in white plastic from the Star Wars movies. http://www.studiocreations.com/stormtrooper/main.shtml

1.6k · October 25, 2002

I think it is telling from Ski's own cache that is just outside Desolate Wilderness area what she is thinking. To quote her page, "Because we believe that geocaches should not be placed in official Wilderness areas, this cache is outside the Desolation Wilderness Boundary (by a few yards!)." [emphasis added] She pretty much states that caches in the area in question aren't allowed in her opinion. She doesn't state that whatever authorities controlling the area has banned them or even frown upon them--she simply states her opinion.

On the cache pages, her entry states, "This has been removed from Desolation Wilderness. Caching of items inside designated Wilderness is a violation of Wilderness regulations. In a short time the remaining caches inside of Desolation will be removed." She doesn't mention that she was told to remove them or that the authorities removed them. Plus, if she's the one that removed them, she is also implying that she intends to remove the others.

On page one of this thread is an email she has written. She sent it to me, as well. She says, in part, "...if there’s a question about the appropriateness of placing geocaches and meeting the spirit of Wilderness regulations, I say geocaches should not be in designated Wilderness." [Again, emphasis added] She, again, states it is her opinion. Don't you think she would have said the authorities think this way as well if she had anything to back it up? Don't you think she would have cited which rule it was if one existed?

Now granted I'm not a lawyer and, as Fizzymagic so eloquently pointed out, I don't know everything, but I did look up The Wilderness Act of 1964. In there, there is nothing one could construe as to banning caches, IMHO. The policy would have to come from the managers themselves.

Earlier in her email she states, "But here’s the rub, how do we choose which rules to bend?" My question would have to be, "which rule?" There has to be a rule to bend before you can bend it.

Now we have stories of rangers who are giving tacit approval, which I can see. These managers don't want to have to make policy and step over bounds--they could easily be countermanded by a higherup. They figure what's the harm as long as it isn't impacting the area negatively. I mean for heaven's sake, they allow pack animals in the area and tell you to bury your, and your dog's, waste! How's that for impact? We frown on any burial.

Now, caches are not trash, they are not abandoned property, they are not permanent structures, they are hidden from view so they can't be an eyesore, the area is specifically set aside for recreation, and quite frankly, I don't understand why one would consider caching counter to the spirit of the reason the area is protected to begin with.

If you really want to talk about bending rules and the spirit of the law, then what's a few yards? Do you hike through the wilderness area to get to, or from, the cache? Can you see it from the wilderness area? Can you see cachers looking for it from the wilderness area? Do contaminates from the ammo can flow torward or away from the wilderness area? ...or seep into the water system?

No, I don't see caches just outside the wilderness area any different than inside.

In fact, I don't see any difference in the rules from one side of the wilderness line to the other as it pertains to caches. If there are, then show it to us.

Just my own humble opinion. <--Disclaimer for Fizzymagic.

CR

-- Insert pithy aphorism here --

38.2k · October 25, 2002

Sissy n CR,

I totally agree with your post. Hard to add to it. I only wish that Ski3pin would join this discussion to give her side. All we have is an e-mail that seems to confirm the suspicion of many of the posters here that she simply alerted the authorities to the presence of the caches and volunteed to remove them.

There is still the issue of the Wilderness Act of 1964. For those of you who haven't been through this entire thread, I'll repeat a passage:

(2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment.

I guess that the question of what activity is compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment is up to the individual land managers, but I don't see how looking for a geocache is all that much different than prospecting for mineral or other resources.

Removal of caches from the Lake Tahoe Desolation Wilderness

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment