Removal of caches from the Lake Tahoe Desolation Wilderness

1.5k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
_(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._

Ok, I'll bite.

What in the world does geocaching have to do with gathering information about mineral or other resources?

I expect a better answer than "Oh, we all count the trees when we go caching, and that's gathering information".

38.2k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
_(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._

Posted by Dr Snazz:

Ok, I'll bite.

What in the world does geocaching have to do with gathering information about mineral or other resources?

I expect a better answer than "Oh, we all count the trees when we go caching, and that's gathering information".

OK, let's say that we remove the mineral prospecting part(which was probably added to pacify the mining lobby), the act then reads:

Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment.

But that's a moot point. I'm uncertain as to the your grasp of the English language, but assuming you do understand it, I'm sure you will agree that using the the term including doesn't preclude other activities.

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

2.6k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

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?

But she has gone to the dark side.

george

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

1.6k · October 25, 2002

"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'm not so sure this flies with what we're talking about. I think if you break down the sentence--and I'm no English major--the main clause of the sentence is "Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources." The "including propecting" and "...if such activity..." adds to the main idea. This means that they wished to include prospecting into the activities AND make sure the activities were compatible i.e. you can gather information as long as you're doing it without tearing up the countryside.

I don't think that clause means what you're trying to say it means. Just MHO.

I do agree that if they are going to allow such activities then they shouldn't be excluding caching. I mean they allow camping, burying waste, certain campfires, etc. etc.; what's a little ammo can hidden behind a rock?

CR

-- Insert pithy aphorism here --

38.2k · October 25, 2002

I did a little poking around the web and found an interesting list of activities that are allowed in wilderness areas. Among them are mining, logging, prospecting, grazing and treasure hunting.

Here is a link that PROMOTES treasure hunting in wilderness areas:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/tonto/recreation/other/other_rec.htm

Here they allow grazing, horseback riding and mining:

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2000/pr001214_wilderness.htm

And here is a page that describes prohibited and allowable activities:

http://www.nmwild.org/wild/faq.htm

Hell, compared to what they allow in so-called Wilderness Areas, Geocaching is pretty darn insignificant and incredibly low impact! I've still yet to find a published regulation that explicitly prohibits Geocaching in wilderness areas.

Dr. Snazz?

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on October 25, 2002 at 05:39 PM.]

October 25, 2002

quote:
...nazi...

AoooooGA! AoooooooGA! CLANG CLANG CLANG CLANG

By long standing tradition on the Internet (born in Usenet) , when a topic has degenerated so far as to mention the word nazi, buy default the thread of messages is terminated and the discussion closed as there is no more relevant content. The signal to noise ratio has been exceeded and the messages so far off topic as to be useless.

This bit of Internet history brought to you by the letter C and the number 7.

1.5k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
But that's a moot point. I'm uncertain as to the your grasp of the English language, but assuming you do understand it, I'm sure you will agree that using the the term _including_ doesn't _preclude_ other activities.

Ok, chief.

The word "including" is used to qualify "prospecting", as an activity for "the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources".

This passage certainly doesn't preclude other activities for "the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources", however it also does not include anything remotely related to geocaching.

Maybe you should just re-arrange all the words so that it suites your meaning. Or, you could always pull anouther passage out of the air and mangle that, instead.

October 25, 2002

I will state that we as geocachers have to be carefull about dealing with/pissing off US Goverment Agencies.

One of my other hobbies is Metal Detecting, and my fellow hobbiests to the South (in the US) have been having a hell of a time with the Governing/Managing bodies over public lands and their uses. The agencies have passed or are using a federal law prohibiting metal detecting on most "US Public Lands" under some Historical Artifact/Site Clause. They contend that by digging up finds you are permanently destroying "Possible Historical Sites or Artifacts". Never mind that the responsible treasure hunters alert the proper agencies if they happen upon an actual site that has potential. Or that detectorists,through their research, have shown archeoligists that they were digging in the wrong spot. In Europe the bring North American Detectorists over to help them better locate their sites and artifacts. It has gotten so bad that under the current federal laws the US goverment has such a broad spectrum of power that they can arrest and charge you for picking/digging up an item that you find in your own backyard, under the belief that that particular item MIGHT have belonged to someone of present OR future historical signifigance. They can then enter your home or property, seize anything they believe to be of historical signifigance, your home itself, your vehicle (possibly used in the commission of one of your other historical artifact raiding crimes), and fine you and/or send you to jail. I have not been directly effected by this but have heard/read of lots of incidents occurring, some of which are currently going through the courts and some lawsuits against the Federal bodies by the citizens.

Imagine a possible future where you crossed a State Line to hide or find a cache and you find some suits at your door charging you with a Federal Crime of disturbing a potential future historical land site.

That's my rant. If you have any doubts, do a web search for metal detectors and federal historical laws, yourself. It's a potential world of hurt for our hobby and hobbiests.

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

1.5k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Hell, compared to what they allow in so-called Wilderness Areas, Geocaching is pretty darn insignificant and incredibly low impact! I've still yet to find a published regulation that explicitly prohibits Geocaching in wilderness areas.

Dr. Snazz?

Dearest Rear Admiral Brian,

You still have not shown how your favorite passage has anything to do with geocaching.

Stop dodging and own up.

38.2k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Dearest Rear Admiral Brian,

You still have not shown how your favorite passage has anything to do with geocaching.

Stop dodging and own up.

Dear Col. Snazz,

This is exactly my point. To use the modern colloquial term...DUH.

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

1.5k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Dear Col. Snazz,

This is exactly my point. To use the modern colloquial term...DUH.

Peter Rabbit came hopping and skipping down the Crooked Little Path. Unc’ Billy Possum always calls him Brer Rabbit, but everyone else calls him Peter. Peter was feeling very fine that morning, very fine indeed. Every few minutes he jumped up in the air, and kicked his heels together, just for fun. Presently he met Jimmy Skunk.

Jimmy was on his way back from Farmer Brown’s corn field, where he had been helping Blacky the Crow get free from a snare. Jimmy was still tickling and laughing over the way Blacky the Crow had been caught. He had to tell Peter Rabbit all about it.

Peter thought it just as good a joke as did Jimmy, and the two trotted along side by side, planning how they would spread the news all over the Green Meadow that Blacky the Crow, who thinks himself so smart, had been caught.

"That reminds me," said Jimmy Skunk suddenly, "I haven’t had my breakfast yet. Have you seen any beetles this morning, Peter Rabbit?"

Peter Rabbit stopped and scratched his long left ear with his long left hind foot.

"Now you speak of it, it seems to me that I did," said Peter Rabbit.

"Where?" asked Jimmy Skunk eagerly.

Peter pretended to think very hard.

"It seems to me that it was back at the top of the Crooked Little Path up the hill," said Peter.

"I think I will go look for them at once," replied Jimmy.

"All right," replied Peter, "I’ll show you the way."

October 25, 2002

Maybe the vigilante did not go about this the right way, but if you find out you inadvertently placed a cache in a designated wilderness area, please remove it. I mean, this is the outdoors people. An extremely SMALL percentage of our country has official Wilderness status. You can pile geocaches on my house, but for God's sake, please don't attract McToys into those areas.

-WR

"Why worry when you can obsess?"

38.2k · October 25, 2002

quote:
Maybe the vigilante did not go about this the right way, but if you find out you inadvertently placed a cache in a designated wilderness area, please remove it. I mean, this is the outdoors people

Mr. Thoreau, have you read any of the posts here?

Mining, grazing animals, treasure hunting, logging and a variety of other activities are allowed under the wilderness act. Geocaching is not specifically banned under this act. Some bureaucrats seem to have determined that Geocaching is not legal, however many park managers have decided to look the other way. Probably because they personally don't see the sport to be incompatable with the intent of the act.

And the real point of this thread is the issue of an individual deciding which caches are appropriate and removing those that they personally deem are not. Apparently you missed that Hank.

4.5k · October 25, 2002

“Hey Ranger, what’d’ya doin’ in the lake with my minnow bucket?”

“Ah, ahem, ah, well, I was just adjusting it so them little shiners could get more fresh water. It’ll keep ‘em alive longer, ya know.”

“Well, maybe so, but I wish you wudn’t mess around with my personal property. Fer a moment I thought yer wuz stealin’ it. By the way, ya haven’t seen an ammo can around here have ya? I cud a swore I placed it nearby. My son’s a preacher man and geocacher, ya know. Asked me to hide it fer himself while I was out bassin’. Strange hobby he has, ya know. Takes these little bibles, sticks em in an ammo box and hides it in them woods. Then people come alookin’ fer it. Strange way to find God if you ask me. Why not just go to church or sumthin'? By the way, nuthin wrong with hiding bible-filled ammo boxes is there?”

“Ohh no. Ah, Of course not. Go right ahead. I think that falls under Freedom of Religion and protected speech. I’d be the last guy to go against our constitution. ”

October 25, 2002

It certainly sounds as if the caches were legal if they had tacit approval from local rangers. What it sounds as if is that they looked the other way, but when pressed they will follow the rules, or some interpretation of those rules. My only thought is this: ski says she spoke with someone who said get rid of it. tahoe says he spoke with someone who said legit. How can they both be telling the truth? Easy, either a) they talked to different people or :smile: the ranger changed his tune when challenged.

Either way, common courtesy says you should either contact the cache owner or jeremy to review it if you think the owner is unlikely to be objective. I just found a cache today that is in close proximinity to a rr tracks and an overpass, which is watched by police because kids throw rocks off it. My GPS said cross the tracks and I practically ran into a cop. The cache is technically in the woods, but it is close (say 20-30 ft) from the tracks. WOuldn't this violate the "not near rr tracks" rule? Hell i passed a no trespassing sign when I crossed the tracks. If I was rules-lawyer I'd contact the owner or Jeremy (privately or with the archive button). In this case though the owner made it clear: his cache was legit but close to somewhere you shouldn't be. That covers it for me.

Had Ski contacted Tahoe, maybe the cache would be archived, maybe not, but at least it would've been the owner removing it voluntarily, not having it stolen by someone who thinks they know better.

quote:
(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.

seems very straight forward: nothing in the act prevents anything as long it doesn't F**K up the environment. Pretty clear to me. SO maybe he didn't even need permission then?

What this whole thread illustrates is that there is a lot of confusion over where you can & can't put caches. I bet even those in the various Forestry Depts may not even be clear. Which is why all this should be discussed first, not arbitrarily decided upon & then acted on, with theft being the result. (and this is IMHO undebatable: unless the cache owner gets it back, it has been stolen, regardless of the whole right/wrong of the location placement)

www.gpswnj.com

October 25, 2002

Here's what can be done to settle this.

The cachers who lost the cache should contact the authorities of the park and request permission to place the cache in the park, maybe ever replace the caches they lost. Now the rangers will either say yea or nay. If nay, say thank you very much and take your cache and go home. If yea, get it in writing (or at least the name of the person giving you the 'yea') and place your cache.

THEN!! If the cache gets sacked again you can hunt down ski3pin and rip them a new one. You could even go to Jeremy and complain AND inquire at the rangers if they gave permission to ski3pin to remove the cache.

Once and for all, this will settle all this sillyness. Then we will know what the true lay of the land is.

Thanks

DirtRunner.

Your not first...But you could be next.

2.6k · October 25, 2002

Place a cache, and have a requirement to log the find that you take a rock from the surounding, a small one, place it in the cache, and then take a different rock, from inside the cache, and take it home and learn about it.

The cache just becomes a conduit for which to study the mineral deposits in the area. Include the note...

"This is a looooooong term mineral sample collecting device. Please leave a mineral and take a mineral. Please do not disturbe the placment of the mineral sample collecting device."

george

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

October 26, 2002

Related topic

Now the prospecting clause makes sense.

October 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

Brokenwing- Welcome back to the forums.

Sorry, I missed this before. Thanks! It's nice to be back!

(sorry everyone for hijacking this topic. We now return to our regularly scheduled argument.)

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

October 26, 2002

You know, something just occurred to me, and I don't know why it didn't earlier. The story is that a ranger involved is a casual cacher. So if the policy or regulation either one is that caches aren't allowed in the wilderness area, or they decided, whether or not at ski3pin's prompting, that they wanted the caches in the wilderness area removed... why didn't the ranger himself:

E-mail the cache hider and ask him/her to remove the cache and archive the listing? Of course, I suppose we have no way to know he didn't.
Post a note log on the cache stating his authority and requesting the cache be removed and archived. Or how about using the &quotthis cache should be archived&quot option?
Send e-mail to the contact addy and explain the cache was in an inappropriate area and request that Jeremy take some sort of action.

I recently was contacted by a ranger who had picked up a cache he said was placed in a restricted area of the park for which he is responsible. He had my contact info due to my permit for placement of a cache in another park within his unit. He had e-mailed the contact addy but was looking for an e-mail addy for the cacher because he didn't wish to register in order to view profiles or post a log. He was not against caches in open access areas of the park and was offering to return the cache to the hider. What a contrast. Just stuff to ponder.

T-storm

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

October 27, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Da Rebel:
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: http://www.geocaching.com

or contact XXXXXX@hotmail.com

My .02 and works for me.

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/3382_900.gif

Da Rebel,

Your labelling idea may prevent an actual theft and lead that person to take a more courteous approach if he/she feels that cache is in an area that is in violation of the law.

David Berne

October 27, 2002

T-storm:

E-mail the cache hider and ask him/her to remove the cache and archive the listing? Of course, I suppose we have no way to know he didn't.

_________________________________________________

T-storm,

The cacher was notified via email by ski3pin, the remover, that his cache was removed and he could call the ranger station at a the phone number given by ski3pin if he wished to pick it up. To this date, I have not heard from the cache owner if he has picked it up. We have emailed each other and I am waiting for his reponse to my last email.

David Berne

October 27, 2002

I'll contribute $5 each if someone will retrieve ski3pin's cache's and send me the containers. You can keep the contents.

"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14

October 27, 2002

if foreskin really wants to protect the wilderness...stay the hell out!

To the guy who was going to be "Deputized" to write tickets...try writing a ticket to someone tellin u to kiss my ash! Rangers are not going to hand out power to enforce regs. just think of the liablity not to mention the judge throwing it back in the face of the agency who started the mess. any caches we place are vulnerable to someone with a chip on their shoulder...life is a *****...then we marry one....

October 27, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by tahoeberne:
The cacher was notified via email by ski3pin, the remover, that his cache was removed

David--

I got that, but what I wondered is why the ranger, presumably someone who already has a geocaching.com account, didn't contact the cache hider(s) to come pick up their caches out of the woods FIRST instead of involving a third party. It just seems like the reasonable first step. Give the hider a set period of time to go pull their cache and archive the listing before taking further action. Oh well, we'll may never know.

T-storm

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

October 27, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
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_.

Oh for crying out loud! Read that little quote in the context of the whole act and specifically the other sections around it, and quit trying to delete selected phrases to make it appear to say what you wish it said! Like it or not, make sense or not, what they were writing into the act was protections for the mineral rights that might be owned by someone prior to the land being acquired for the WA. All the surrounding sections pertain to various rights that are often sold separately from land. It is not a guarantee of anyone's &quotrecreational rights&quot. It is NOT an opening for geocaching.

T-storm

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

October 28, 2002

I thought I was the public!

Um, honey, did you mark a waypoint for the car?

October 28, 2002

A foreshadowing indeed.

OK OK, I'm joking. But ain't anyone else thinking this whole geocaching thing is getting out of control?

[This message was edited by GeoStop on October 28, 2002 at 01:58 PM.]

38.2k · October 28, 2002

quote:
Oh for crying out loud! Read that little quote in the context of the whole act and specifically the other sections around it, and quit trying to delete selected phrases to make it appear to say what you wish it said! Like it or not, make sense or not, what they were writing into the act was protections for the mineral rights that might be owned by someone prior to the land being acquired for the WA. All the surrounding sections pertain to various rights that are often sold separately from land. It is not a guarantee of anyone's &quotrecreational rights". It is NOT an opening for geocaching.

I never deleted other parts, in fact I provide a link to the entire act. Still, I've yet to find a paragraph that prohibits Geocaching, or similar activities. The fact is that they allow mining, logging, treasure hunting and a number of other activities that, to me, aren't consistent with the concept of wilderness. Comparatively, Geocaching is a relatively benign activity and totally in synch with recreational activities that are in the spirit of a wilderness area.

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

October 28, 2002

If I'm not mistaken, an area has to be roadless to be designated wilderness, correct? (That's why the USFS rushes off to build roads to nowhere, to prevent the blocking of future logging). Anyway, wouldn't that pretty much prevent about 99.9% of geocachers from going in there anyway - you know if they had to use their feet.

October 28, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
I never deleted other parts, in fact I provide a link to the entire act. Still, I've yet to find a paragraph that prohibits Geocaching, or similar activities.

I refer to your post stating:

quote:
OK, let's say that we remove the mineral prospecting part(which was probably added to pacify the mining lobby), the act then reads:

Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment.

That seems to me a poor attempt to convinvce folks that not only does the Wilderness Act NOT prohibit geocaching in wilderness areas, it actually prevents rangers from prohibiting them. That finagling of the text coupled, repeated posting/reference to that one section and no acknowledgement of the pointing out flaws in using the text to try to protect geocaching are what I object to. I agree with you that I see nothing in the Act that actually prohibits caching within Wilderness Areas. There is no need to mislead by omission (of the context of the section in which your favorite quote appears) to make your point.

T-storm

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

2.5k · October 28, 2002

I wasn't going to get involved in this but I'm going to have to go with BrianSnat on this one. The way I read it, it's talking about any activity, including prospecting

This almost sounds like they added the prospecting part as an afterthought to make sure it was included in the any activity part.

And as far as gathering information about mineral or other resources go, I'm gathering waypoints on the website, geo-trinkets at the cache, and information from the logbook to see who was there before me. The resources I'm gathering are other than mineral.

My opinion is mine, your opinion is yours, neither of us are the judge.

Another opinion of mine is that a geocache should not be removed by another geocacher without going through the steps that are already in place and readily available to anyone who tried to search for them.

38.2k · October 28, 2002

quote:
quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:
I never deleted other parts, in fact I provide a link to the entire act. Still, I've yet to find a paragraph that prohibits Geocaching, or similar activities.

I refer to your post stating:

quote:

OK, let's say that we remove the mineral prospecting part(which was probably added to pacify the mining lobby), the act then reads:

Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment.

That seems to me a poor attempt to convinvce folks that not only does the Wilderness Act NOT prohibit geocaching in wilderness areas, it actually prevents rangers from prohibiting them. That finagling of the text coupled, repeated posting/reference to that one section and no acknowledgement of the pointing out flaws in using the text to try to protect geocaching are what I object to. I agree with you that I see nothing in the Act that actually prohibits caching within Wilderness Areas. There is no need to mislead by omission (of the context of the section in which your favorite quote appears) to make your point.

Hello McFly, all of my other posts quoted, or had links to the entire act. The one post that you are quoting was written with the INTENT of removing a certain portion of the act to make my point. I stated this specifically within that post and was going on the assumption that people here would have a clue. Shall I refer to my specific statement that says:

OK, let's say that we remove the mineral prospecting part. Duh.

If you are really that clueless, here is the entire 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.

Again, the statement including prospecting does NOT PRECLUDE any other activity. It only INCLUDES it.

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on October 28, 2002 at 05:03 PM.]

2.5k · October 28, 2002

prospect - to explore or search (for): as to prospect for gold

resource- something that lies ready for use or can be drawn upon for aid

What's the problem?

2.6k · October 28, 2002

There it is. www.geoprospecting.com.

george

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

4.5k · October 28, 2002

Sorry Briansnat, I have to go with tstorm on this one. Especially since he's from Texas, he should know something about mineral rights and oil exploration.

My firt reaction when you posted it was I was picturing a bunch of Texas (sorry, I have to go with my theme!) Congressman and Senators with their arms crossed adamant they aren't going to sign no bill that doesn't protect the oil and exploration lobby. No way. So they put the whole paragraph in there only for these purposes and none other including geocaching parasailing, kite flying or for minnow buckets! The purpose of this paragraph was exploration as I see it and n one was think on caching.

However, as previously stated, if there still is no specific prohibition against caching, then it's OK until some manager makes one.

ALan

October 28, 2002

Surely someone knows someone in congress. Maybe you could ask him to tack on a little pork to some bill saying Geocaching is ok in the WA since most geocachers are doing more good than harm. To think that preventing caching in Wilderness Areas is important to any agency is simply delusional.

"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14

October 28, 2002

Originally posted by T-storm:

David--

I got that, but what I wondered is why the ranger, presumably someone who already has a geocaching.com account, didn't contact the cache hider(s) to come pick up their caches out of the woods FIRST instead of involving a third party. It just seems like the reasonable first step. Give the hider a set period of time to go pull their cache and archive the listing before taking further action. Oh well, we'll may never know.

T-storm

I did not ask the ranger if he has a geocaching.com account, but he has done some geocaching. I am still trying to make contact with the ranger, but he has been out of the office. I agree that the hider should have been given an opportunity to pull his cache, but that did not occur, and that is my beef with this whole affair. Also, ski3pin has not responded to my email that I had questions for him to answer. There may be a legitmate reason for his non-response but I am still skeptical. And yes, if I don't get more information and responses, you are right--we may never know for sure.

David Berne

October 29, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Duke_:
Surely someone knows someone in congress. Maybe you could ask him to tack on a little pork to some bill saying Geocaching is ok in the WA since most geocachers are doing more good than harm.

I met Phil Graham last night at a local rally. Really neat guy. Didn't get a chance to talk about geocaching, though. Since he's retiring, he's a lame duck anyway.

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

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

6.4k · October 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by tahoeberne:
Also, ski3pin has not responded to my email that I had questions for him to answer. There may be a legitmate reason for his non-response but I am still skeptical. And yes, if I don't get more information and responses, you are right--we may never know for sure.

David Berne

Well, just to toss a little gas on the fire, I have noticed one thing. That every time I have checked this thread, I've gone back and checked on ski3pin's profile. Each day I've checked, I noticed s/he had logged into geocaching.com within the past day. So, I guess we can assume they didn't fall off the face of the earth, or have computer problems, or get too busy with work/family/life to geocache. They just choose not to respond to emails or this thread.

Sometimes no response is the most telling response.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

38.2k · October 30, 2002

I'm sure she's read this thread in its entirity, but wouldn't dare respond here. Would YOU if you saw people like me calling you all sorts of horrible names?

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

20.7k · October 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Would YOU if you saw people like me calling you all sorts of horrible names?

Your pic may have frightened her off.

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.

4.5k · October 30, 2002

Hey briansnat. I see ya got a new stylist. I'd ask for a refund! Very uncool.

Alan

October 30, 2002

If someone or in this case two someones elected themselves my judge and jury I'd have alot more for them than just talk. It's good they stay silent. They've done enough. Idiots.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but don't bet on it.

38.2k · October 31, 2002

I was under the assumption that Ski3pin was a chick because some photos in Ski3pin's logs show a female and identify her as Ski3pin. Others here refer to HE and some use THEY when referring to Ski3pin.

Does anybody know for sure if Ski3pin is a male, female, or possibly a male/female team? Not that it matters. I just want to be correct when I call her/him/them nasty names.

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

1.5k · October 31, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Does anybody know for sure if Ski3pin is a male, female, or possibly a male/female team? Not that it matters. I just want to be correct when I call her/him/them nasty names.

I'm confused about your gender as well; your avatar used to be an ugly chick, but as of this writing its an ugly dude.

6.5k · October 31, 2002

comon PEOPLE, lets keep rehashing this and we'll soon have 200 replies!!

(you happy now ms.snazz?)

[This message was edited by welch on October 31, 2002 at 04:40 PM.]

1.5k · October 31, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by welch:
comon guys, lets keep rehashing this and we'll soon have 200 replies!!

Guys? Aren't some of us posting here also gals? I'm still confused on the whole gender issue.

5.9k · October 31, 2002

Guys? Aren't some of us posting here also gals? I'm still confused on the whole gender issue.

I ain't touching that one, too easy.

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 31, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
I ain't touching that one, too easy.

Aww, come on... I set myself up soo well.

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