Jump to content

Some don't read the rules


Mejas

Recommended Posts

icon_confused.gifI have found that a lot of cachers don't get permission before putting a cache out. I went to one park that had three caches in it. When at the ranger's office to get a trail map, they didn't know there were any in the park. After explaining what Geocaching was about they like the idea, but would like to be told before one was put in the park.

icon_wink.gif I have two in a state park. While there looking for a cache the ranger came over and wanted to know where it was. After we talked I said I would like to place one back on a trail where it would be a little harder to get to. He liked the idea. He was going to go back with me and help find a real good hiding spot, But the day I went to hide it he was busy so I placed it myself. Saw him a couple weeks later and he said he would like another one back there. Its a lot more fun working with the rangers he has my name and e-mail if they ever become a problem he will let me know to take care of them. icon_razz.gif

 

Mejas

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

If an activity is not prohibited, why is it necessary to ask permission?


 

IF you know it's not prohibited, then go for it. If you don't know then ask. I usually ask just out of courtesy. Because I am concerned that others know Geocachers are conscientious people. Why do some smokers asked if it is ok to light up around non smokers even if smoking in a legal place? Nuff said.

 

_________________________________________________________

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

15777_2200.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrownMule:

IF you know it's not prohibited, then go for it. If you don't know then ask. I usually ask just out of courtesy. Because I am concerned that others know Geocachers are conscientious people. Why do some smokers asked if it is ok to light up around non smokers even if smoking in a legal place? Nuff said.


What planet are you from? I have NEVER had a smoker ask permission to give me lung cancer. They just assume that I want it. They're even worse then telemarketers always assuming that dinnertime is the best time to sell aluminum siding.

 

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

This signature line intentionally left blank

Link to comment

Jomarac5 said:

 

There are no rules.

 

There are only guidelines.

-----

 

Quite so. Excellent point. The great part of this is that it employs common sense, on our part and the part of the approvers. With guidelines one delibrates. With a rule, no thought is required nor usually accepted.

 

4497_300.jpg

Link to comment

.

What planet are you from? I have NEVER had a smoker ask permission to give me lung cancer. They just assume that I want it. They're even worse then telemarketers always assuming that dinnertime is the best time to sell aluminum siding.

 

you probably sit down next to a dozen smokers a day that don't light up. you can hate telemarketers though.

 

Blackshoe Clan is fixin' to cache in!

Link to comment

quote:
If an activity is not prohibited, why is it necessary to ask permission?

 

Because the laws that authorize and regulate parks and other such public places are written to give those in charge of them great latitude in interpreting what is allowed and what is not. It wouldn't take a very big leap to interpret geocaching as littering or otherwise harmful to the ecosystem.

 

A "it's my right and I'm going to do it" attitude will just turn these people against us. It is far better to have them on our side.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Blackshoe:

.

quote:

What planet are you from? I have NEVER had a smoker ask permission to give me lung cancer. They just assume that I want it. They're even worse then telemarketers always assuming that dinnertime is the best time to sell aluminum siding.


 

you probably sit down next to a dozen smokers a day that don't light up. you can hate telemarketers though.

 


 

That's probably true... but have you ever noticed how when you go out for an evening meal with a smoker they'll usually insist on sitting in the smoking section?

 

That always baffled me. Smokers can move to the smoking section to have a puff, yet the non-smokers would be forced to endure an evening of sitting in the wretched filthy air.

 

Not that I'm biased, or anything. icon_wink.gif

 

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Kouros:

but have you ever noticed how when you go out for an evening meal with a smoker they'll usually insist on sitting in the smoking section?


Just INSIST that you are going to sit in the non-smoking section and that they are welcome to join you there.
Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by AllenLacy:

quote:
Originally posted by Kouros:

but have you ever noticed how when you go out for an evening meal with a smoker they'll usually insist on sitting in the smoking section?


Just INSIST that you are going to sit in the non-smoking section and that they are welcome to join you there.

 

Oh, I do.

 

My point was kinda badly worded (what can I say... spend all day sat at a computer writing stuff, and when you try and describe something, it all goes to pot).

 

It was more the presumption that *some* smokers (most in my experience - unless they're quitting, though i will readily admit that there are somkers who have respect for others. This is by no means a blanket statement) have that non-puffies will be fine with sitting in a putid atmosphere.

 

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

Link to comment

....But I would much rather discuss the topic of asking land owners/managers for permission to place caches on their land.

 

My $0.02 worth: If it's possible to contact the owner/manager, you should contat the owner/manager before placing the cache. If nothing else, it's a common courtesy. (I don't suppose you would be pleased if I hid a cache in the bushes under your living room window without first asking permission.)

 

Happy Hunting!

 

~ bcj19

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

If an activity is not prohibited, why is it necessary to ask permission?


 

I agree.

 

All rights not specifically given to or claimed by the government are reserved for the people.

 

If an agency takes time to come up with a geocaching policy I will comply. If they want help drafting a policy I will be glad to help if asked.

 

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

I think that if a park or other public place lists out specific prohibited activities and Geocaching is not listed, its fair game. After all, I am playing by their rules since it is their park.

 

As for State Parks we have been well received in SC and I would give them the courtesy of asking if I wanted to place one there.

 

Just curious if you asked permission to hide Earlwood's First or Mejas #1 which are not in state parks?

Link to comment

Rules, icon_eek.gif Regulations, icon_eek.gif Because Groundspeak asked us to! icon_rolleyes.gif Common courtesy.

 

But it seems more important to put a logbook in a micro, than asking for Permission icon_confused.gif.....(still don't understand that one, but please don't slam me on it here, there is another thread for that)....

 

So if the sign in the park, forest, ect. reads, NO: Firearms, alcohol, pets, GeoCaching, then it's ok? icon_cool.gif

 

rocker

Link to comment

Renegade Knight, BrianSnat, et al,

 

For most public land, there are already rules and regulations. Read literally, the rules concerning litter and dumping could be directly applied to caching. Caches are, after all, intentionally concealed, abandoned property. The courts would almost certainly see it that way if a cacher knew who had plundered or destroyed his/her cache and was seeking criminal or civil redress against the culprit.

 

But, even if you would split the hairs differently, it does not matter. As pointed out by another poster, the land management agencies are generally given great latitude in interpretting the regulations and in devising new regulations.

 

Depending on your point of view, this can be seen as either pointless or sensible government intervention. Snowmobiling in Yellowstone would be a good example. Presumably, there is a sensible balance between loud dirty fun, and reasonable stewardship, but no matter what the NPS does, someone will be very unhappy.

 

Climbers can tell you that it is possible to establish a reasonable relationship with the NPS and other land management agencies. They can also tell you that places that have the worst access (ex. Hueco Tanks in Texas), usually can blame the root of the problem on a handful of folks who are absolutely certain that they have the "right" to do what they "want" on "their" land.

 

The problem with "our" land is we don't all agree with what to do with it. That is why we have BLM, NPS, etc. in the first place.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

The Sockpuppet wrote:

quote:
Read literally, the rules concerning litter and dumping could be directly applied to caching. Caches are, after all, intentionally concealed, abandoned property.

 

Actually, read literally, they can NOT be applied to geocaching.

 

Litter is defined as "A disorderly accumulation of objects, especially carelessly discarded waste material or scraps". Abandoned is defined as "to give up with the intent of never again claiming a right or interest in" and "to leave without intending to return".

 

A geocache is quite the opposite.

 

"An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last" -Winston Churchill

Link to comment

I think it is commendable that you have a good track record for asking permission and as I said, I would in a State Park because they welcome us. But I do not think it is necessary to ask every time we place one in a city park or other public place. I think you would find that most of the caches in our area save those in State Parks and private property were done without asking. For the record none of mine were given permission prior to placing them. I hope that does not mean folks will stop hunting them. If they do its their choice. I can also say I have enjoyed hunting each of your caches and hope to continue to do so weather or not they have permission!

Link to comment

"I think that if a park or other public place lists out specific prohibited activities and Geocaching is not listed, its fair game. After all, I am playing by their rules since it is their park"

 

I agree with the first part of that, but not the second. It's not their park. They just work there. Okay, so they're managing a resource, but somehow I have a hard time accepting policies of exclusion. Yes, I can understand them when there's sensitive habitat, but all too often that isn't the case. Maybe I should become a ranger so that I can hike in those areas

Link to comment

Forgive me for boiling down too much, I agree that they just work there and are managing a resource that belongs to the public. I intend to respect the rules they post at our parks and if I disagree with the rule and it interferes with what I want to do (Geocache or whatever) I will try to work through the proper channels to change the rules. Not just ignore the rule and do as I please. After all, there may be a very good reason for the rule that I am not aware of...

 

But...No rule prohibiting Geocaching or hiking or similar activity on public property...I'm gonna go and I'm not gonna ask. That being said, I am also going to place the cache such that the impact to the environment is minimized or eliminated where possible.

Link to comment

What are the rules in Geocaching?

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook. Where you place a cache is up to you.

These are things you may find at the below listed link:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/faq.asp

 

Cache Listing Requirements (Which can be construed as Rules)/Guidelines located at:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp

 

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

We're assuming that you asked permission to post your cache. However, if we see any listing description mentioning ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing will be automatically archived.

 

Caches will be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

· Caches on National Park Service maintained lands

· Caches that are buried - If a shovel/trowel/pointy object is used to dig - in order to hide or find a cache - it's not appropriate.

· Caches hidden by active railroad tracks (within 150 feet of active railroad tracks)

· Caches near or in military installations

· Caches under public structures deemed targets for terrorist attacks

 

These "rules" are not inclusive, just a short listing of some of them. Please feel free to peruse the links at Geocaching.com. Thanks.

 

"Edison Medicine": Anything that brightens your day is a good thing!

 

icon_wink.gificon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jfitzpat:

Renegade Knight, BrianSnat, et al,

The problem with "our" land is we don't all agree with what to do with it. That is why we have BLM, NPS, etc. in the first place.

 

-jjf


 

We need to have a beer. But...Geocaches are not abandoned unless the placer dies.

 

However the rules for abandoned property are written to give the BLM, Park Service etc. great lattitude in dealing with all the junk that accumulates on their lands. That lattitude is broad enough to cover geocaching.

 

The BLM etc. doesn't exist because we can't agree on what to do with the land. They exist because the Government ownes the land to begin with. We still can't agree on what to do with the land, inspite of the BLM etc.

 

That the BLM allows geocaching is a bonus. That they haven't required permits is all the better.

 

After all nobody gets a permit to haul out a TV and shoot it up. Why make a geocache have more hoops when it's actually maintained?

 

Besides we help haul out the TV's.

 

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

quote:

Climbers can tell you that it is possible to establish a reasonable relationship with the NPS and other land management agencies. They can also tell you that places that have the worst access (ex. Hueco Tanks in Texas), usually can blame the root of the problem on a handful of folks who are absolutely certain that they have the "right" to do what they "want" on "their" land.


 

Yeah - great example, but as a climber - I disagree with your premise. Plenty of good climbing areas are closed to climbing for reasons other than land abuse (I believe fear of lawsuits ranks high here).

 

You can see how rampant bureaucracy becomes when people assume that permission needs to be granted. I much prefer the society where specific activities are regulated - and those not specifically mentioned are unregulated. You see both types of management on public land, but the point of your climbing example is bunk.

 

Unfortunately, people in charge sometimes say no just because they can.

 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and oh yeah - mean people suck (how's that for philosophy applied to geocaching?).

Link to comment

Renegage Knight, HartClimbs,

 

Sorry, I'll mix my response to your two posts together.

 

Regarding, 'until the cacher dies'. Sorry, no. I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed this subject for other reasons. There is substantial case law concerning items and materials left on public lands. Food and supply caches, bolted anchors for rock climbing, watering troughs and sheds for equestrian uses... You name it. The results are always basically, 'you leave it on public land, you have no reasonable expectation to get it back' and 'maintain no inherent ownership rights'.

 

The good news is that, although the property is 'abandoned', it is not, according to the same case law, a permanent man-made fixture, which is precluded on a lot of public land via other regulations (presumably, if sturdy stables don't quality, a tupperware tub full of Happy Meal toys or a couple of 3" RAWL bolts don't either.)

 

Regarding stupidity vs. liability and/or power trip, I'll stand by 'stupidity' for 90+% of the cases on public land. Private land is another matter. Most US land owners are (rightfully) scared of being sued. After all, if hot coffee can get a person millions... But, even on private land, I can think of a number of cases where a few self absorbed jerks had already pre-disposed land owners against access, even when groups are willing to address liability issues with leasing, etc.

 

Certainly, that was the case with some climbing areas in AZ over the last 10 years.

 

I don't know how long you have been climbing, but I think that climbing's biggest access problems are primarily due to explosive growth. Take lots of climbers with some showing virtually no self control when it comes to bolting, boom boxes, and chalk and you are going to have problems. Add to this that accidents are on the rise, particularly when folks transition from plastic to the great outdoors, and liability concerns are increased as well.

 

But, a little dialog and self restraint have kept some truly great areas open. I like that I can still share experiences like High Exposure in the Gunks, Durrance at Devil's Tower, Mount Conness at Yosemite, etc. with my daughter. I just hope that as she gets older, more ambitious adventures, like Snake's Dike, Mace II, etc. will still be open to us.

 

-jjf

 

[This message was edited by jfitzpat on March 18, 2003 at 04:05 PM.]

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...