Removal of caches from the Lake Tahoe Desolation Wilderness

38.2k · October 31, 2002

quote:
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.

Ain't no many women what are named Brian an look like I do in my profile.

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

October 31, 2002

Having quite a few attorney's in my family, I've been brought up with the law. Have I bent or broken some??? Does a bear do his business in the woods?? The primary theme in most of our laws is the "spirit" of the law. ie the context. We have so many people trying to follow things so literally, playing?? completely stupid. There are some "givens" that any statement would assume, like the person staring at the law book can read, and that he/she possesses the mental capacity to properly deduce the spirit in which the law was written, and act accordingly. It kinda boils down to a few simple things, number one common sense. . . which would mandate a bit of courtesy. First off, the way ski-whoever logged was clearly written in a spiteful, confrontational and in my opinion disrespectful tone. I am quite new to this board and the hobby, as you can see, I haven't gone on any hunts yet. I love the outdoors, I have a GPS, seemed kinda like a no brainer. You have many people that enjoy the environment in many different ways. For some strange reason humans seem to have a burning desire to impose their will upon others. Why can people not live and let live. Geez, this is insanity, and to think that this is a family sport and children are learning this assinine behavior to carry into future generations. It's really easy, it's not yours, but you feel it doesn't belong there, or you are told to remove it, alright fine. Go to the owner of the cache, and notify them of it's pending removal, or it's immediate removal whatever the case may be, THEN (as a fellow cacher) SUGGEST that a log be placed by the owner of the cache explaining some relocation. If the owner was unwilling to do so POLITELY, without pissing people off, explain that Sgt. So-in-so requested the removal of said cache, and that the owner was notified. I honestly believe if that was the case, there would not have been all the hubbub. As far as the environmentalist issue goes, I am for the preservation of the environment, as I am an avid Off-road Motorcyclist I have participated in cleaning trails we ride (on ORV's) and have also packed out trash on our lil power line rides (kinda interesting packin trash on a bike hee hee). Anyway, it's important to understand that our land is a valuable resource, but it's valuable to us because we enjoy spending time in it, each of us a little differently, and sometimes in the same way. Well if we all have some enviro-weenie breathing down our neck ALL the time, no matter WHAT we do, it takes away some of the joy, and it's inherent value. . . so in the end what is really being preserved??? The great outdoors?? Or someone's right to be a Royal pain in the @$$!!

5.3k · October 31, 2002

Is Ski3pin still a member of geocaching.com? If so, why has the account not been removed? It has become abundantly clear that these caches were removed without proper authorization; therefore, ski3pin is a cache thief. Such people are not appropriate members of our community. So why has the account not yet been terminated?

October 31, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Mr502go:
Having quite a few attorney's in my family, I've been brought up with the law. Have I bent or broken some??? Does a bear do his business in the woods?? The primary theme in most of our laws is the "spirit" of the law. ie the context. We have so many people trying to follow things so literally, playing?? completely stupid. There are some "givens" that any statement would assume, like the person staring at the law book can read, and that he/she possesses the mental capacity to properly deduce the spirit in which the law was written, and act accordingly. It kinda boils down to a few simple things, number one common sense. . . which would mandate a bit of courtesy. First off, the way ski-whoever logged was clearly written in a spiteful, confrontational and in my opinion disrespectful tone. I am quite new to this board and the hobby, as you can see, I haven't gone on any hunts yet. I love the outdoors, I have a GPS, seemed kinda like a no brainer. You have many people that enjoy the environment in many different ways. For some strange reason humans seem to have a burning desire to impose their will upon others. Why can people not live and let live. Geez, this is insanity, and to think that this is a family sport and children are learning this assinine behavior to carry into future generations. It's really easy, it's not yours, but you feel it doesn't belong there, or you are told to remove it, alright fine. Go to the owner of the cache, and notify them of it's pending removal, or it's immediate removal whatever the case may be, THEN (as a fellow cacher) SUGGEST that a log be placed by the owner of the cache explaining some relocation. If the owner was unwilling to do so POLITELY, without pissing people off, explain that Sgt. So-in-so requested the removal of said cache, and that the owner was notified. I honestly believe if that was the case, there would not have been all the hubbub. As far as the environmentalist issue goes, I am for the preservation of the environment, as I am an avid Off-road Motorcyclist I have participated in cleaning trails we ride (on ORV's) and have also packed out trash on our lil power line rides (kinda interesting packin trash on a bike hee hee). Anyway, it's important to understand that our land is a valuable resource, but it's valuable to us because we enjoy spending time in it, each of us a little differently, and sometimes in the same way. Well if we all have some enviro-weenie breathing down our neck ALL the time, no matter WHAT we do, it takes away some of the joy, and it's inherent value. . . so in the end what is really being preserved??? The great outdoors?? Or someone's right to be a Royal pain in the @$$!!

After all of that, I'm asking myself, just what the hell was the point

October 31, 2002

Ever hear of the return key? Geesh.

I usually read these things thoroughly, but passed on this long post because it didn't make a lot of sense.

Paragraphs, folks. Not one long without a break aimlessly wandering with no logic train paragraph.

November 1, 2002

one might consider contacting the owners of the 64 caches that ski has found, inform them of the situation here, and request that they remove her find post from their cache pages. She might get the point then.

[This message was edited by Duke_ on November 01, 2002 at 08:19 AM.]

November 1, 2002

Don't forget to also head out and remove her illegally placed cache in the middle of the Toiyabe National Forest (Funny how she hasn't removed that one, which is SMACK DAB in the middle of the NF). I've actually emailed her twice concerning whether or not she is going to remove it and she has ignored me. The thing that disgusts me about ski1pin is her inability to follow her own rules and ideology when it comes to her own caches, she's just a big hypocrite.

Doug

1.5k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:
Is Ski3pin still a member of geocaching.com? If so, why has the account not been removed? It has become abundantly clear that these caches were removed without proper authorization; therefore, ski3pin is a cache thief. Such people are not appropriate members of our community. So why has the account not yet been terminated?

Maybe we should use some gigantic scales and see if she weighs the same as a duck! Because ducks float, and so do witches!

Nothing is clear, so cut it out with the lynch mob attitude.

You people disgust me.

November 1, 2002

I would like to see 3skipin removed from geocaching for removing caches without authority. I might feel different if 3skipin would have posted a reply apologizing for their actions but their silence speaks for itself.

1.5k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by TahoeJoe:
I would like to see 3skipin removed from geocaching for removing caches without authority. I might feel different if 3skipin would have posted a reply apologizing for their actions but their silence speaks for itself.

I would agree, if it is proven that she did remove without authority.

November 1, 2002

quote:
Maybe we should use some gigantic scales and see if she weighs the same as a duck! Because ducks float, and so do witches!

_Nothing_ is clear, so cut it out with the lynch mob attitude.

You people disgust me.

Big deal, be disgusted. Several things are clear. The caches were not hers. And since they were not hers, she should not (insert explantive here) with them. Forgive us if we get a little upset when people, especially people claiming to be a part of our community, steal or destroy our caches.

The situation is easily remedied. Return the caches, and don't take things that don't belong to you.

Thieves and vandals disgust me. Upset cachers who vent do not.

1.5k · November 1, 2002

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.

The land is managed by an agency, which has rules in order to protect the land for future generations. It is up to them to decide if geocaching is in line with the conservation of the land.

1.5k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Duke_:
Big deal, be disgusted. Several things are clear. The cachers were not hers. And since they were not hers, she should not (insert explantive here) with them.

What if a ranger had removed the caches?

5.9k · November 1, 2002

Bottom line: This has turned into 5ive pages of pure grief. Grief that could have been avoided by following the proper procedures for archiving a cache, or if the person in question had minded his/her own dadgum business. Now we're bickering like some old married couple.

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**

November 1, 2002

quote:
What if a ranger had removed the caches?

We could do the what if game all day. The fact is, a ranger didn't remove the caches.

But since we're doing "what ifs", what if she had behaved in a decent manner and notified the cache owners that the caches should be removed?

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

5.3k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
What if a ranger had removed the caches?

The reason I say that it is clear that the caches were removed without authority is that ski3pin has been repeatedly asked for some time to provide the name of the person who authorized the cache removal. Since ski3pin has thus far refused to do so, without providing any explanation for said refusal, I think it is obvious that they were lying when they said they were asked to remove the caches.

But if you have some actual evidence (aside from their unverified assertion) that they were actually asked to remove the caches, please let us see it so we can stop being a "lynch mob."

1.5k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Duke_:
We could do the what if game all day. The fact is, a ranger didn't remove the caches.

Has it been proven that she wasn't told by her supervisor(s) to remove the caches?

2.6k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

What if a ranger had removed the caches?

What if the caches had been run over by a drunk driver?

george

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

1.5k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:
But if you have some actual evidence (aside from their unverified assertion) that they were actually asked to remove the caches, please let us see it so we can stop being a "lynch mob."

Hi, I come from a magical place called America.

Here in America (Ah-maaaare-ick-ah) we have a concept, commonly refered to as "innocent until proven guilty".

I'm sorry if my confusion has led me to post foolishly; I assumed that all enlightened peoples shared our concepts of justice.

Peace be unto you, brothers from the stars.

5.3k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
Has it been proven that she wasn't told by her supervisor(s) to remove the caches?

Let's be clear about where the burden of proof lies here. Since ski3pin has admitted to removing the caches, the only question is whether it was authorized or not. If ski3pin claimed that they had not removed the caches, then there might be a requirement for proof, but that isn't the case here.

For that question, the burden of proof is on ski3pin. If the police seize your property, they are required under the fourth amendment to show a good reason why they had to do so. If they show up at your door to do a search, they have to provide the warrant; it's not up to you to prove that they didn't have a warrant.

In general, any law enforcement action must be justified. It's the way our constitution works.

Thus, in this case, since ski3pin acted as law enforcement, it is ski3pin's responsibility to prove the assertion that the caches were removed via proper authority. It is not the responsibility of the cache owners to prove that ski3pin didn't have the authority.

I am astonished by Snazz's combined invocation of the Constitution and complete lack of understanding of it at the same time.

November 1, 2002

Tahoeberne talked to the NFS station where the caches were allegedly taken to and where 3skipin claimed they had the authority to remove the caches. The District Resource manager told TahoeBerne that he knew nothing about ski3pin removing the caches and that it was not their policy to seek out and remove caches. That and 3skipin not posting to this thread leads me to believe that the acted without authority and should have their account closed for behavior not worthy of a geocacher.

Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.

1.5k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:
I am astonished by Snazz's combined invocation of the Constitution and complete lack of understanding of it at the same time.

I don't speak your crazy moon-language!

1.5k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by TahoeJoe:
The District Resource manager told TahoeBerne that he knew nothing about ski3pin removing the caches and that it was not their policy to seek out and remove caches.

ski3pin contended that she was told to remove caches if she "happened to be in the area", which is quite a bit different than seeking out and removing caches.

Did you ask the district resource manager if anybody had been told to remove caches, if they happened to be in the area?

5.3k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
ski3pin contended that she was told to remove caches if she "happened to be in the area", which is quite a bit different than seeking out and removing caches.

And then she proudly admitted to seeking out and removing the caches!

Go read the logs!

1.5k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:
And then she admitted to seeking out and removing the caches! Go read the logs!

What's that? I can't understand what you're saying. I don't speak your crazy moon-language!

November 1, 2002

It makes me sad to see all of the negativity that 3skipins actions have created. Like it or not I now realize that after carefully reading the Wilderness Act geocaching is more than likely not allowed in Wilderness areas. In the future caches placed in Desolation Wilderness should be virtual caches which I still would enjoy finding and would cause no problems for the NFS and the geocaching community. I still don't agree with 3skipins actions and I think that Jeremy should have guidelines on geocaching behavior and consequences for not following the guidelines. I don’t like how incidents like this leave a sour taste in my mouth for I’m not normally a negative person. With that being said I think I’ll go geocaching and leave my negativity behind!

Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.

5.9k · November 1, 2002

Can I introduce a concept here? Anyjoe Cacher wants to hide a clearly illegal cache. It’s on government property, chock full of guns & drugs, booby trapped, and he bored a hole through a giant redwood to hide it inside. Then he posts the coordinates on the web where we can all see that it’s on prohibited property. What’s the best course of action? IGNORE IT! Unless the adventure of finding such a cache is to your liking, why would you take any action?

Skiwhatevers and all the rest of us should mind our own business. They were not compelled by their “volunteer” status to remove those caches. Mr. Snazz is making the same point over and over, they had permission from the rangers to remove them. OK, fine, he’s right. However, they are volunteers, so their action was voluntary. They had the option of NOT finding the caches or finding and notifying the owners IAW the procedures on the website.

I think what some are thinking but not saying, is that Skis and supporters are worried about the “black eye” effect from improperly placed caches. That argument is moot. The Air Force has a favorite paradigm like this. “If your hair (or whatever else) is out of regs, then John Q. Public will think the entire AF are a bunch of slobs.” Not so, they will think YOU are a slob. They believe about the AF what they believe because of how it handles things like “Kelly Flynn”, who was thrown out of the AF for doing pretty much the same thing her Commander In Chief (Clinton) was doing. To bring the analogy around, the example above will not make people think all geocachers are redwood tree destroying, booby trapping, dope smoking, gun hiding, trespassers. A few of low intel might, but they like the argument are inconsequential.

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 November 01, 2002 at 02:08 PM.]

November 1, 2002

Thank-you for your letter of inquiry regarding the issue of geocaches in

Desolation Wilderness. We are currently removing geocaches previously

placed within the wilderness boundary, and will not permit the placement or

replacement of any future caches. As managers of national forest

wilderness, it is our responsibility to uphold the legislation which

initially created it, and to enforce the regulations instituted by the

government to protect its primitive character.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 clearly defines wilderness as an area

untrammeled by man...retaining its primeval character and influence...which

is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.

Certainly there are challenges associated with this goal, particularly in

an area as heavily visited as Desolation Wilderness. But to that end the

Code of Federal Regulations includes specific laws prohibiting the

abandonment of personal property and littering on national forest lands,

both of which carry fines for the violator. Wilderness ethics and

Leave-No-Trace techniques (the positive results of which we are just

beginning to witness in visitors as a whole) demand that visitors pack out

what they pack in to protect those aspects of 'wildness' that still remain

in wilderness.

Additionally, cross-country travel to cache locations often results in the

trampling of fragile vegetation and the proliferation of user-created

trails. Such trails naturally channel water from the heavy Sierra snowpack,

resulting in the rapid erosion of areas which otherwise, independent of

human interference, would retain their soils and vegetation for a

substantially longer period of time.

Thanks for your interest in Desolation Wilderness, and for taking the time

to inquire.

Sincerely,

Edit

Lead Wilderness Ranger

Pacific Ranger District, Eldorado National Forest

7887 Highway 50

Pollock Pines, CA 95726

Edit

November 1, 2002

ski3pin could have/should have forewarned the hiders. Unfortunately my opinion is that it wouldn't make much of a difference if they were forewarned or not (As far as the cache itself is concerned), difference being that the hider would have had to go collect it themselves. From what I read previous the cache was collected and the hider emailed as to where it could be collected. Saves the hider a bit of time and trouble I would think. I would not handle the situation the same as ski3pin and would probably try to avoid anything similar. The situation has come up and been settled, No caches allowed in Desolation Wilderness. I do not feel that ski3pin was correct in the way she handled her duty, job or whatever you want to call it. I do not know though if she did as she did because she was in the area fulfilling another obligation or merely went to cause havoc, power trip and ruin everybody's Geocaching experience. I am not sure if she was trying to in some way fulfill what she considered a civic duty or just wanted to upset everyone to the point of geobashing.

[This message was edited by Kusanagi on November 01, 2002 at 11:59 PM.]

November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Kusanagi:
Here is what I was told.

Regardless of my thoughts on that 'opinion', ski3pin still should have allowed the cache hider an opportunity - either directly, or through proper authoritative channels (named Jeremy).

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

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

November 1, 2002

Even if she was authorized, she went about it the wrong way. Since she is a geocacher she should know that the correct way would be to contact the geocacher and tell them her concerns and by what authority she is requestign they should be removed.

If I got an email from ski3pin that said that ranger smith at ###-###-#### would like me to remove my GC at __________ because of ___________ and he is the land manager. I would call ranger smith and verify ski3pin's email and his authority - if I couldn't get him I would temp. archive the cache till I could straighten it out. Then once I confirmed it I would archive it and go to get it.

why couldn't she do it this way?

----(sig line)---> Did you ever do any trail maintainence? - if so you will know that all but the most worn trails need continuous maintenance to prevent mother nature from reclaiming it. herd paths are quickly reclaimed - k2dave

November 1, 2002

Originally posted by k2dave:
Even if she was authorized, she went about it the wrong way. Since she is a geocacher she should know that the correct way would be to contact the geocacher and tell them her concerns and by what authority she is requestign they should be removed.

If I got an email from ski3pin that said that ranger smith at ###-###-#### would like me to remove my GC at __________ because of ___________ and he is the land manager. I would call ranger smith and verify ski3pin's email and his authority - if I couldn't get him I would temp. archive the cache till I could straighten it out. Then once I confirmed it I would archive it and go to get it.

why couldn't she do it this way?"

Oh, my God!

K2Dave's version of what should have happened is how it might be in the rest of your stepford lives, but where I come from people make mistakes. So she should have been more polite about it, so what? I can't believe 5 pages have been devoted to bashing the hell out of someone's error. What planet do you all come from that you haven't made an etiquette mistake? If Ski3pin had never come across this kind of situation before, how should she know exactly how to handle it? It's obvious she thought she handled it the right way, whether she is correct or not. Maybe she thought she was doing the hider a favor by saving him the 8 mile hike. Give her a freakin' break. She contacted him, Let him know where he could retrieve it at his convenience and made a note on the cache page so other cachers wouldn't be unaware of it's absence. Somebody shoot her!! She didn't handle it the way we would, we must destroy diverse attitudes!!

I can't believe that so much has been made of this. If I ever break some rule of manners unknowingly, I'm really hoping everyone else in the geocaching community would cut me some slack, just like I would for them.

One of the things I enjoy most about caching is the picnics and gatherings. I love getting to know other people who enjoy this as much as I do, but if the community is turning into the Miss Manners police, I don't want to be part of it. Jeez!

Thank you Mr. Snazz for your comments.

38.2k · November 1, 2002

My comments in bold.

quote:
Here is what I was told.

Thank-you for your letter of inquiry regarding the issue of geocaches in

Desolation Wilderness. We are currently removing geocaches previously

placed within the wilderness boundary, and will not permit the placement or

replacement of any future caches. As managers of national forest

wilderness, it is our responsibility to uphold the legislation which

initially created it Which section?, and to enforce the regulations instituted by the

government to protect its primitive character.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 clearly defines wilderness as an area

untrammeled by man Clearly? What does it mean by untrammled? Un-encumbered? How is the presence of a geocache encumbering? Not all that clear to me....retaining its primeval character and influence...which

is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditionsmining, prosepcting and logging are some of the activities allowed under this act.

Certainly there are challenges associated with this goal, particularly in

an area as heavily visited as Desolation Wilderness. But to that end the

Code of Federal Regulations includes specific laws prohibiting the

abandonment of personal property and littering on national forest lands,

both of which carry fines for the violator Is a Geocache really abandoned property? Leave-No-Trace techniques (the positive results of which we are just

beginning to witness in visitors as a whole demand that visitors pack out

what they pack in to protect those aspects of 'wildness' that still remain

in wilderness.

Additionally, cross-country travel to cache locations often Often? Where is the proof? results in the

trampling of fragile vegetation and the proliferation of user-created

trails Yeah, where is the study?. Such trails naturally channel water from the heavy Sierra snowpack Same as hiking and biking trails? How 'bout berry pickers? [/b}

resulting in the rapid erosion of areas which otherwise, independent of

human interference, would retain their soils and vegetation for a

substantially longer period of time.

Thanks for your interest in Desolation Wilderness, and for taking the time

And here is the act, AGAIN.

To establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Short Title

Sec 1. This Act may be cited as the "Wilderness Act" (16 U.S.C. 1 1 21 (note))

WILDERNESS SYSTEM ESTABLISHED STATEMENT OF POLICY

Sec. 2. (a) In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as ''wilderness areas'', and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as ''wilderness areas'' except as provided for in this chapter or by a subsequent Act.

( :smile: The inclusion of an area in the National Wilderness Preservation System notwithstanding, the area shall continue to be managed by the Department and agency having jurisdiction thereover immediately before its inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. No appropriation shall be available for the payment of expenses or salaries for the administration of the National Wilderness Preservation System as a separate unit nor shall any appropriations be available for additional personnel stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because they are included within the National Wilderness Preservation System.

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

© A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of underdeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

EXTENT OF SYSTEM

Sec. 3 (a) All areas within the national forests classified at least 30 days before September 3, 1964 by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as ''wilderness'', ''wild'', or ''canoe'' are hereby designated as wilderness areas. The Secretary of Agriculture shall -

Within one year after September 3, 1964, file a map and legal description of each wilderness area with the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives, and such descriptions shall have the same force and effect as if included in this chapter: Provided, however, That correction of clerical and typographical errors in such legal descriptions and maps may be made.

Maintain, available to the public, records pertaining to said wilderness areas, including maps and legal descriptions, copies of regulations governing them, copies of public notices of, and reports submitted to Congress regarding pending additions, eliminations, or modifications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regulations pertaining to wilderness areas within their respective jurisdictions also shall be available to the public in the offices of regional foresters, national forest supervisors, and forest rangers.

( The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten years after September 3, 1964, review, as to its suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as wilderness, each area in the national forests classified on September 3, 1964 by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as ''primitive'' and report his findings to the President. The President shall advise the United States Senate and House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to the designation as ''wilderness'' or other reclassification of each area on which review has been completed, together with maps and a definition of boundaries. Such advice shall be given with respect to not less than one-third of all the areas now classified as ''primitive'' within three years after September 3, 1964, not less than two-thirds within seven years after September 3, 1964, and the remaining areas within ten years after September 3, 1964. Each recommendation of the President for designation as ''wilderness'' shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. Areas classified as ''primitive'' on September 3, 1964 shall continue to be administered under the rules and regulations affecting such areas on September 3, 1964 until Congress has determined otherwise. Any such area may be increased in size by the President at the time he submits his recommendations to the Congress by not more than five thousand acres with no more than one thousand two hundred and eighty acres of such increase in any one compact unit; if it is proposed to increase the size of any such area by more than five thousand acres or by more than one thousand two hundred and eighty acres in any one compact unit the increase in size shall not become effective until acted upon by Congress. Nothing herein contained shall limit the President in proposing, as part of his recommendations to Congress, the alteration of existing boundaries of primitive areas or recommending the addition of any contiguous area of national forest lands predominantly of wilderness value. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the Secretary of Agriculture may complete his review and delete such area as may be necessary, but not to exceed seven thousand acres, from the southern tip of the Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado, if the Secretary determines that such action is in the public interest.

© Within ten years after September 3, 1964 the Secretary of the Interior shall review every roadless area of five thousand contiguous acres or more in the national parks, monuments and other units of the national park system and every such area of, and every roadless island within the national wildlife refuges and game ranges, under his jurisdiction on September 3, 1964 and shall report to the President his recommendation as to the suitability or nonsuitability of each such area or island for preservation as wilderness. The President shall advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of his recommendation with respect to the designation as wilderness of each such area or island on which review has been completed, together with a map thereof and a definition of its boundaries. Such advice shall be given with respect to not less than one-third of the areas and islands to be reviewed under this subsection within three years after September 3, 1964, not less than two-thirds within seven years of September 3, 1964 and the remainder within ten years of September 3, 1964. A recommendation of the President for designation as wilderness shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. Nothing contained herein shall, by implication or otherwise, be construed to lessen the present statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the maintenance of roadless areas within units of the national park system.

(d) (1) The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall, prior to submitting any recommendations to the President with respect to the suitability of any area for preservation as wilderness -

give such public notice of the proposed action as they deem appropriate, including publication in the Federal Register and in a newspaper having general circulation in the area or areas in the vicinity of the affected land;

hold a public hearing or hearings at a location or locations convenient to the area affected. The hearings shall be announced through such means as the respective Secretaries involved deem appropriate, including notices in the Federal Register and in newspapers of general circulation in the area: Provided, That if the lands involved are located in more than one State, at least one hearing shall be held in each State in which a portion of the land lies;

at least thirty days before the date of a hearing advise the Governor of each State and the governing board of each county, or in Alaska the borough, in which the lands are located, and Federal departments and agencies concerned, and invite such officials and Federal agencies to submit their views on the proposed action at the hearing or by no later than thirty days following the date of the hearing.

Any views submitted to the appropriate Secretary under the provisions of (1) of this subsection with respect to any area shall be included with any recommendations to the President and to Congress with respect to such area.

(e) Any modification or adjustment of boundaries of any wilderness area shall be recommended by the appropriate Secretary after public notice of such proposal and public hearing or hearings as provided in subsection (d) of this section. The proposed modification or adjustment shall then be recommended with map and description thereof to the President. The President shall advise the United States Senate and the House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to such modification or adjustment and such recommendations shall become effective only in the same manner as provided for in subsections ( and © of this section.

USE OF WILDERNESS AREAS

Sec. 4. (a) The purposes of this chapter are hereby declared to be within and supplemental to the purposes for which national forests and units of the national park and national wildlife refuge systems are established and administered and -

(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to be in interference with the purpose for which national forests are established as set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11), and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (74 Stat. 215) (16 U.S.C. 528-531).

(2) Nothing in this chapter shall modify the restrictions and provisions of the Shipstead-Nolan Act (Public Law 539, Seventy-first Congress, July 10, 1930; 46 Stat. 1020), the Thye-Blatnik Act (Public Law 733, Eightieth Congress, June 22, 1948; 62 Stat. 568), and the Humphrey-Thye-Blatnik-Andresen Act (Public Law 607, Eighty-Fourth Congress, June 22, 1956; 70 Stat. 326), as applying to the Superior National Forest or the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture.

(3) Nothing in this chapter shall modify the statutory authority under which units of the national park system are created. Further, the designation of any area of any park, monument, or other unit of the national park system as a wilderness area pursuant to this chapter shall in no manner lower the standards evolved for the use and preservation of such park, monument, or other unit of the national park system in accordance with sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this title, the statutory authority under which the area was created, or any other Act of Congress which might pertain to or affect such area, including, but not limited to, the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 432 et seq.); section 3(2) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(2)); and the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).

( Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES

© Except as specifically provided for in this chapter, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this chapter and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this chapter (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

(d) The following special provisions are hereby made:

Within wilderness areas designated by this chapter the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable. In addition, such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable.

Nothing in this chapter 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. Furthermore, in accordance with such program as the Secretary of the Interior shall develop and conduct in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, such areas shall be surveyed on a planned, recurring basis consistent with the concept of wilderness preservation by the United States Geological Survey and the United States Bureau of Mines to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present; and the results of such surveys shall be made available to the public and submitted to the President and Congress.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, until midnight December 31, 1983, the United States mining laws and all laws pertaining to mineral leasing shall, to the same extent as applicable prior to September 3, 1964, extend to those national forest lands designated by this chapter as ''wilderness areas''; subject, however, to such reasonable regulations governing ingress and egress as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture consistent with the use of the land for mineral location and development and exploration, drilling, and production, and use of land for transmission lines, waterlines, telephone lines, or facilities necessary in exploring, drilling, producing, mining, and processing operations, including where essential the use of mechanized ground or air equipment and restoration as near as practicable of the surface of the land disturbed in performing prospecting, location, and, in oil and gas leasing, discovery work, exploration, drilling, and production, as soon as they have served their purpose. Mining locations lying within the boundaries of said wilderness areas shall be held and used solely for mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto; and hereafter, subject to valid existing rights, all patents issued under the mining laws of the United States affecting national forest lands designated by this chapter as wilderness areas shall convey title to the mineral deposits within the claim, together with the right to cut and use so much of the mature timber therefrom as may be needed in the extraction, removal, and beneficiation of the mineral deposits, if needed timber is not otherwise reasonably available, and if the timber is cut under sound principles of forest management as defined by the national forest rules and regulations, but each such patent shall reserve to the United States all title in or to the surface of the lands and products thereof, and no use of the surface of the claim or the resources therefrom not reasonably required for carrying on mining or prospecting shall be allowed except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter: Provided, That, unless hereafter specifically authorized, no patent within wilderness areas designated by this chapter shall issue after December 31, 1983, except for the valid claims existing on or before December 31, 1983. Mining claims located after September 3, 1964, within the boundaries of wilderness areas designated by this chapter shall create no rights in excess of those rights which may be patented under the provisions of this subsection. Mineral leases, permits, and licenses covering lands within national forest wilderness areas designated by this chapter shall contain such reasonable stipulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture for the protection of the wilderness character of the land consistent with the use of the land for the purposes for which they are leased, permitted, or licensed. Subject to valid rights then existing, effective January 1, 1984, the minerals in lands designated by this chapter as wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral leasing and all amendments thereto.

Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by this chapter, (1) the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial; and (2) the grazing of livestock, where established prior to September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this chapter to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.

Nothing in this chapter shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in the national forests.

STATE AND PRIVATE LANDS WITHIN WILDERNESS AREAS

Sec. 5. (a) In any case where State-owned or privately owned land is completely surrounded by national forest lands within areas designated by this chapter as wilderness, such State or private owner shall be given such rights as may be necessary to assure adequate access to such State-owned or privately owned land by such State or private owner and their successors in interest, or the State-owned land or privately owned land shall be exchanged for federally owned land in the same State of approximately equal value under authorities available to the Secretary of Agriculture: Provided, however, That the United States shall not transfer to a State or private owner any mineral interests unless the State or private owner relinquishes or causes to be relinquished to the United States the mineral interest in the surrounded land.

( In any case where valid mining claims or other valid occupancies are wholly within a designated national forest wilderness area, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, by reasonable regulations consistent with the preservation of the area as wilderness, permit ingress and egress to such surrounded areas by means which have been or are being customarily enjoyed with respect to other such areas similarly situated.

© Subject to the appropriation of funds by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to acquire privately owned land within the perimeter of any area designated by this chapter as wilderness if (1) the owner concurs in such acquisition or (2) the acquisition is specifically authorized by Congress.

GIFTS, BEQUESTS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS

Sec. 6. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture may accept gifts or bequests of land within wilderness areas designated by this chapter for preservation as wilderness. The Secretary of Agriculture may also accept gifts or bequests of land adjacent to wilderness areas designated by this chapter for preservation as wilderness if he has given sixty days advance notice thereof to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Land accepted by the Secretary of Agriculture under this section shall be come part of the wilderness area involved. Regulations with regard to any such land may be in accordance with such agreements, consistent with the policy of this chapter, as are made at the time of such gift, or such conditions, consistent with such policy, as may be included in, and accepted with, such bequest.

( Authorization to accept private contributions and gifts The Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept private contributions and gifts to be used to further the purposes of this chapter.

ANNUAL REPORTS

Sec. 7. At the opening of each session of Congress, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior shall jointly report to the President for transmission to Congress on the status of the wilderness system, including a list and descriptions of the areas in the system, regulations in effect, and other pertinent information, together with any recommendations they may care to make. (16 U.S.C. 11 36)

APPROVED SEPTEMBER 3, 1964.

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on November 02, 2002 at 04:34 AM.]

1.5k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
My comments in _bold_.

quote:
Here is what I was told.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 clearly defines wilderness as an area

untrammeled by man A lie, this is not specified in the act

From your own pasting of the act:

"© A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

November 1, 2002

quote:
Oh, my God!

K2Dave's version of what should have happened is how it might be in the rest of your stepford lives, but where I come from people make mistakes.

A mistake is one thing, especially if it is acknowledged. As for cutting you some slack, if you steal one of my caches, I aint cuttin you jack, ya thief!

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

38.2k · November 1, 2002

quote:
Dr Snazz says:

"© A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

And?

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

38.2k · November 1, 2002

"He who lives in glass houses, should not throw eggs at the window, lest they make a big mess" - H.L. Mencken

November 2, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
But to that end the Code of Federal Regulations includes specific laws prohibiting the

abandonment of personal property and littering on national forest lands,

both of which carry fines for the violator Is a Geocache really abandoned property?

It depends. I would sya no because I know the intent. The average person who stumbles on it could say "hey look what someone left behind. cool!" and walk off with it. I decided to look up the definiton and I found the following:

To give up by leaving or ceasing to operate or inhabit, especially as a result of danger or other impending threat:

So if I leave my cooler in the park after a picnic is that abandonedment? or if someone walks off with it, is it theft? If it clearly belongs in the possession of someone (i.e. I'm still there picnicing) then it's theft. if it can reasonably be infered that the person isn't returning for it, then it's abandoned and you can do what you want.

I think the welcome letter clearly establishes property rights and intent to return, so no I don't think it can be considered abandoned.

However.

Do we have the right to put our property on their land permanently? (by permanently I mean indefinately, I know we can and will remove it if asked) I suspect the answer is no, but I'll have to read the lengthy post fully before I can say for sure.

This begs the question though, why is her cache still there then?

www.gpswnj.com

November 2, 2002

Tomebug

she did it 3 F#$%@n times!!!!!

Once I may understand, even 2x but when it gets to #3 it's a pattern and she has had time to think of what she did inbetween.

I don't know if it was done in the same day - if so I can give her a little slack but if they were on different days she should have known better (esp. once she stole the 1st one and had time to reflect).

She, being a geocacher herself makes matters worse.

----(sig line)---> Did you ever do any trail maintainence? - if so you will know that all but the most worn trails need continuous maintenance to prevent mother nature from reclaiming it. herd paths are quickly reclaimed - k2dave

5.3k · November 2, 2002

Stop Grousing was removed September 14.

Halfway There was removed September 22.

Aloha Baby was removed October 20.

There is no possible way to characterize these actions as "mistakes."

November 2, 2002

"A mistake is one thing, especially if it is acknowledged. As for cutting you some slack, if you steal one of my caches, I aint cuttin you jack, ya thief!"

Now you're calling me a thief? Do you see the ridiculousness of how far this rant has gone?

(K2dave) "(esp. once she stole the 1st one and had time to reflect)."

To both of you, she didn't STEAL them, she clearly stated to the owner where they could be picked up.

Also, after time to reflect...It seems to me she did not get repremanded by the owner after the first one, so how was she to think she shouldn't handle the others the same way? Really, has anyone heard a complaint from the owner of the caches? I'd serously like to find out how he feels about this.

3k · November 2, 2002

MARKWELL, MARKWELL, MARKWELL!!!

THIS THREAD IS ON FIRE. FLAMES EVERYWHERE. GET THE EXTINGUISHER.

Markwell: (märk w l), verb To cite a thread (or threads) where a topic was already discussed thus putting an end to the need to discuss it again.

Cache you later,

Planet

I feel much more like I do now than when I first got here.

November 2, 2002

User ski3pin has contacted you with the following message:

This is the latest email I received from ski3pin and am posting it.

Regards, David Berne

I have read all the posts on the forum. Forgive my tardiness in

responding to your last message. I have been avoiding the computer because the

little ones like to crawl up on my lap and have me read all the e-mails

to them. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been a real good idea lately.

I must thank you for confirming three things for me from your report on

talking with the Pacific Ranger District. They are: that I am a USFS

volunteer, that geocaches are illegal in the Wilderness, and that

Wilderness Rangers are directed to remove geocaches when they come upon them.

I’m not a Wilderness Ranger, but this is real close to what I was told.

I did not steal these geocaches. They were removed and turned over to

the USFS. The owners of the geocaches were notified as to where they can

pick up their caches.

How did I know that geocaches were not allowed in Wilderness? I was

thinking about placing geocaches in the Wilderness and asked if it was

okay. I was told that it was a violation of Wilderness regulations.

I posted my messages on the removal of the caches as a courtesy so

people wouldn’t continue to look for them and also to alert geocachers

about the illegality of Wilderness caches. I know you are thinking, “that’s

not much of a courtesy”, but has anyone noticed that after a geocache

is placed in the nearby Mokelumne Wilderness no one can find it? No,

it’s not me nor do I know who has been removing them.

I’m pleased that some on the forum are interested in this enough that

they’ve done some research into the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Act does

not contain all the regulations. It is up to the land managers to

administer the area in ways that preserve and protect its Wilderness

qualities. With lots of opportunity for public input, a Wilderness Management

Plan is put together. Its here where we see the fine tuning necessary

to meet the qualities defined in the Wilderness Act. It’s important to

note here that the Wilderness Act is about preserving Wilderness; it is

not about setting up a special recreation area for us outdoorsy types.

I appreciate DisQuoi posting my original statement. I’d like people to,

please, put the emotions aside and go back and reread my thoughts on

placement of caches in Wilderness. I believe that they will agree with

me. I’d like to see a statement on the geocaching website calling for a

ban on placing geocaches in designated Wilderness areas as this is in

line with current Wilderness regulations. It would also show geocachers

to be a respectable and responsible user group, which we are.

_________________________________________________

One post asks if the placers who had their caches removed responded. As of today, none of them have not. Also, none of them have responded to my email asking if they were concerned about this. With over a week of no response, one might begin to think the placers aren't too concerned about this entire matter.

I also agree with the response that it is disrespectful of those whose posts called for heavy punitive actions or mention epithets regarding ski3pin--of which I am guilty too in my first post. We are all capable, including me, of keeping a higher standard of respect in our responses, and thus avoiding that ugly pitfall of a degraded thread.

David Berne

[This message was edited by tahoeberne on November 02, 2002 at 12:57 PM.]

November 2, 2002

Currently the Forest Service has no official national policy on geocaches. Individual forests may have local policies and I believe most geocachers and Forest Service managers would like to keep it that way. I am a Forest Service employee (GIS Specialist) and I have assumed on my own to monitor geocaches on my Forest, including ones placed in designated Wilderness. To date I have not found a geocache that was causing unacceptable resource impacts or incompatible with wilderness values, nor have I heard of any from others. Geocaching is an emerging form of public lands recreation and the Forest Service has an obligation to accommodate this public use. I see geocaching as a positive use, enticing people to visit lesser used and lesser developed areas of the public lands.

November 2, 2002

quote:
One post asks if the placers who had their caches removed responded. As of today, none of them have not. Also, none of them have responded to my email asking if they were concerned about this. With over a week of no response, one might begin to think the placers aren't too concerned about this entire matter.
I also agree with the response that it is disrespectful of those whose posts called for heavy punitive actions or mention epithets regarding ski3pin--of which I am guilty too in my first post. We are all capable, including me, of keeping a higher standard of respect in our responses, and thus avoiding that ugly pitfall of a degraded thread.

David Berne

I would have to agree with tahoeberne on this. If members of the NFS are also geocachers and reading this thread, what kind of message are we sending out to them about the geocaching community? We need to present ourselves as responsible individuals who are not bent to seek revenge and go out and cause harm to the environment. I don't agree with how ski3pin handled things and still feel if the NFS had an issue with the caches they should have removed the caches or contacted the owners to remove the caches. This thread would never have been started if this was how it was handled. Please no more name calling!

Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.

November 2, 2002

There is no specific language in the Wilderness Act or any of its amendments that forbids geocaches. Some managers are using the argument of permanent feature or abandonment of personal property as the rationale for removal. IMHO -- a geocache by definition is not a permanent feature and asserting placing a geocache constitutes an abandonment of personal property is quite a stretch. Other National Forest managers are aware of geocaches inside designated Wilderness and see no inherent incompatibility. I will not second guess ENF on their local policy, but it is not universal to all National Forests.

4.5k · November 2, 2002

A geocache is no more a permanent feature or an abandonment of personal property than a minnow bucket. If the manager wants to interpret it that way he will. And if he's open-minded and can see the positive value of geocaching with it;s truly minimum impact on the environment, he will treat it in that light. My guess is this prohibition or lack thereof will bounce around a lot over the near future depending on local restrictions which we'll have to live with.

Alan

November 3, 2002

quote:
by ski: I posted my messages on the removal of the caches as a courtesy so people wouldn’t continue to look for them and also to alert geocachers about the illegality of Wilderness caches. I know you are thinking, “that’s
not much of a courtesy”, but has anyone noticed that after a geocache is placed in the nearby Mokelumne Wilderness no one can find it? No,

it’s not me nor do I know who has been removing them.

and another quote, this from the geocaching welcome letter...

quote:
If this container happens to be sitting on private property and you wish it removed, please let us know. We apologize, and will be happy to move it.

We ask that if the property manager feels it needs to be removed that he contact the cache owner & it will be removed. This is not always easy, as the property owner may not know who Gwho is, or exactly how to reach him. Fine. But I would expect a geocacher to live up to a higher standard then that.

Period. end of story.

I also had some time to reflect ony my earlier post about abandonment. If I own a car & leave it purposely deep in the woods, is that abandonment? Yes. You can purposely abandon something. Whatever my reason, if I leave it someone public and don't come back for it, although I may technically still own it, the average layperson would consider it abandoned.

Despite the presence of the geocaching welcome letter which informs someone why it's been left, the fact is that they are under no obligation to consider it something besides litter or to think of it as anything besides abandoned. Some will interpret it correctly but there's no obligation there. If a land manager, paark ranger, Yogi Bear thinks it's something abandoned, or feels it litter, and if that's against the rules, then I would think he has the right to take it.

It comes down to opinion, and we all know the cliche about opinions and what they're like and how everybody's got one, etc etc.

In which case IF it was justified for it to be removed we come back full circle to what I said at the top. Personally I can't for the life of me understand why anyone who plkays for both sides so to speak would want to take on that responsibility. At best, they could just notify the owner, notify the rangers and then let nature take its course, but why would they want to get involved in actual removal? Why set yourself up to be viewed as the bag guy? And again, I renew my comment that geocachers live up to higher standards IMHO then the general dorky public. In this situation they didn't even meet the public standard.

www.gpswnj.com

November 3, 2002

Virtual caches can be placed in designated Wilderness without restricion. There is no physical object to remove. The standards apply as in regular caches -- do not place a virtual caches in an area where searchers may cause unacceptable resource damage nor where searchers will risk injury traveling to that spot. These rules apply whether inside a designated Wilderness or outside.

November 3, 2002

Dave54,

You are right. Virtuals are the way to go in any restricted wilderness area, or any area that may pose a problem of any sort. Had that been done with good judgement initially, this super-marathon thread would be non-existent, and most of us would feel much better about our lives.

Well, at least me....

David Berne

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