The National Park Service Did The Right Thing By

2.3k · November 19, 2003

I guess I feel the need because geocaches on public land really irritate me. I think it takes away from the natural beauty of the land. Sure they are hidden but so is garbage in a landfill. It does not mean I want a landfill in the park I hike in. (I know a geocache is not garbage, my point is that just because it is hidden does not mean that it does not have an impact on my enjoyment of the land.)

I guess, I want to remove them rather than let the land managers do it since they are chronically overworked otherwise. I have no particular need to hike a geocache out of the woods somewhere - I just want them removed and I know if I do it, it'll get done. If I leave it to the land managers it may get done at some point - even if the land manager has a strict policy on them, it may still not be a priority.

I thought giving the owner a couple of weeks to retrieve it him/herself would be sufficient to satisfy your concerns. How long should I wait? Why should I rely on some public servant to do the right thing when I am ready, willing and able?

L.E.

P.S. And, if I may say, you guys are way more polite than I expected. Thanks.

Here is a thought and its MY PERSONAL opinion ONLY.

Instead of worring about caches on the wrong land. Try finding some on the right land. According to your profile you have been around a month and so far have found no caches. You at least need to understand the came before you start causing problems.

The above is MY PERSONAL opinion ONLY.

And before you ask. I log my cache finds under my personal account. So you wont see any on this profile.

1.3k · November 19, 2003

I guess I feel the need because geocaches on public land really irritate me. I think it takes away from the natural beauty of the land. (I know a geocache is not garbage, my point is that just because it is hidden does not mean that it does not have an impact on my enjoyment of the land.)

If it is hidden, how does it impact your enjoyment of the land? You will only know one is there if you are looking for it! Yes, not all caches are hidden well, but very few people ever just find a cache without the waypoint in their GPSr.

Team,

I'll debate from the other side for a minute. If a geocache is hidden and out of view, it does not take away from the view and such. However, OTHERS having to FIND it will have to dig and poke around to locate it, which can be a problem and affect the area.

Cheers,

Blake

November 19, 2003

This has been covered in the forums before, but here is a reminder.

According to the Code of Federal Regulations geocaches are not abandoned property or litter. Depending on the situation a geocache may be an inappropriate use or likely to cause resource damage. This is determined on a case-by-case basis (except for the NPS which has issued a blanket regulation).

There is a legal definition and specific procedures to be followed on Federal lands before property can be declared 'abandoned' and impounded by the government. This is normally used for cars, camping gear, and the like, but also applies to geocaches. If anyone thinks a particular geocache is inappropriately placed contact the cache owner and the local administrative agency office. I cannot speak for all offices, but my local National Forest has an employee who monitors local geocaches.

9.4k · November 19, 2003

I'll debate from the other side for a minute. If a geocache is hidden and out of view, it does not take away from the view and such. However, OTHERS having to FIND it will have to dig and poke around to locate it, which can be a problem and affect the area.

True, however, what is the difference between geocachers making a 20 foot circles around a tree looking for a cache and campers setting up tents, tables, showers, etc?

Cache owners should return to their caches periodically to make sure the surrounding environment is not being destroyed. This is called being responsible, and in any activity you will find those that are and those that are not.

1.3k · November 19, 2003

Another point worthy of note is that removing caches along the AT might not just affect caches in a national park. The trail passes through the Smoky Mountains NP, but extends far beyond the park's boundaries. It is conceivable that removing a cache outside the parks boundaries, and placed on public land with permission, would be outright theft. If the cache is properly maintained, and placed with permission, it stays. If the owner does not respond to your emails, that only means they don't respond to your emails. That does not mean that they have abandoned the cache, or maintenance thereof. And if it is placed with proper permission, it should stay there if it is five feet wide and painted flourescent orange as well.

1.6k · November 19, 2003

...that just because it is hidden does not mean that it does not have an impact on my enjoyment of the land...

You're so full malarkey it's unreal.

If it's hidden properly--meaning that's it not going to be casually found--then it has absolutely no impact on your enjoyment on the land. Heck, the only way you would even know it's there is because someone told you about it.

If you really want to feel good about yourself, go work at a soup kitchen or something.

CR

1.5k · November 19, 2003

I cache that has been stolen (removed) without permission is more likely to cause damage to the environment than one that is still there. Instead of actually finding it where it is supposed to be, the searcher will spend much more time at the location before coming up empty.

Removing a cache placed on public land, unless you are the person in charge of that land is theft, nothing less.

1.3k · November 19, 2003

I'll debate from the other side for a minute. If a geocache is hidden and out of view, it does not take away from the view and such. However, OTHERS having to FIND it will have to dig and poke around to locate it, which can be a problem and affect the area.

True, however, what is the difference between geocachers making a 20 foot circles around a tree looking for a cache and campers setting up tents, tables, showers, etc?

Cache owners should return to their caches periodically to make sure the surrounding environment is not being destroyed. This is called being responsible, and in any activity you will find those that are and those that are not.

Very valid points, especially with campers. They do far more damage to the environment. Place a tent down for a night on grass and you will see what happens, about a 100 sq feet of dead grass. Most caches I have found have very little or no visable impact and I am sure that most cachers take the time to hide their tracks after they find the stash.

Cheers,

Blake

November 20, 2003

All right, I am not a troll

After reading the responses and your followups, the above statement is becomeing doubtful in my eyes. Further I think the politness you commented on may be getting worn out.

You have persisted through several posts in trying to gain license to go out and steal geocaches. Yes, steal is the right word since caches are neither abandoned, nor litter, as has been pointed out by others in this thread.

I guess I feel the need because geocaches on public land really irritate me. I think it takes away from the natural beauty of the land.

Now we get to your motivations and the reason for my branding you as a possible troll. You are "irritated" by an activity about which you know nothing, and practiced by people you have never met. You have never hunted a cache nor have you ever found one by accident. I think you would have told us by now if you had. You have no basis for your statement that geocaching takes away from the beauty of the land. I assert that you can't reference a single instance of that, and having never seen a cache, have also never seen firsthand an instance of that.

If you carry out your plan to find caches (of which you don't approve) so you can get them removed, you are geocaching yourself. You're just combining it with the sport of spoiling the fun of others. Why not just do the geocaching part and leave it at that. Who knows; You might just find it's fun, and no longer have a need to play the lone hero, fighting for good in a corrupt society.

9.4k · November 20, 2003

38.2k · November 20, 2003

I guess I feel the need because geocaches on public land really irritate me. I think it takes away from the natural beauty of the land. Sure they are hidden but so is garbage in a landfill. It does not mean I want a landfill in the park I hike in. (I know a geocache is not garbage, my point is that just because it is hidden does not mean that it does not have an impact on my enjoyment of the land.)

Similar to knowing that people are engaging in sex while you're walking through their neighborhood. You know it's happening and it spoils your walk. Be freakin' real man.

When I see beer cans, used tires and cigarette butts, that's litter. A Tupperware container, carefully concealed doesn't come close to the definition of litter.

As one who is involved with land use issues, I spend a lot of time cleaning litter and keeping my eye out for illegal land use and trail encroachment. I assure you that a geocache is not one of the things that worries me as I walk through the forest. I'm more concerned about poachers, dumpers, illegal ATVers, encroachment, erosion, graffiti, real litter and other, much more serious stuff.

If you find a geocache that is having a serious impact on its surroudings, contact the owner, or this website and it will be addressed. But I'm sure it will take you quite some time for you to do so. I'm approaching 200 finds and have over 50 hides and I've yet to find one. Are they out there? Sure. But if you're such an "environmentalist", how about worrying more about inappropriate development and dumpers and a little less about someone hiding a Tupperware container in the rocks.

3.9k · November 20, 2003

lessenergy --

Can you cite a specific instance where you feel a geocache takes away from the natural beauty of the land?

I challenge you to answer the above question with a YES or NO. If yes, please explain in detail.

November 20, 2003

Good grief. Over 60 replies already?

The guy's a troll. We all know it. Let's go back to telling Jeremy the site sucks because it only has 95% of everything we want...

Ron/yumitori

November 20, 2003

Hi All.

Sorry, I can't keep track of all the names so I'll respond in general terms. I hope no one is insulted by this and no insult is intended.

I am not sure how you define "troll" to in my mind, it is someone who deliberately causes other posters to get angry and that that is the purpose of his/her posts. I am not a troll in that, I very much do not want you to get angry - disagree with me, tell me why you think I am wrong - but not angry because I am looking for you to educate me and you getting angry and dismissing me as a troll does not help me at all. I just don't really understand the mindset and want some more knowledge.

I have in fact found one geocache, by accident as I did not have a GPS with me.

Yes, I have registered for more than a month now. No I have not found a geocache since I have not looked for one. (As indicated, I did find a geocache once but it was well before I registered.) I have been lurking for a month trying to understand geocaching and the issues - most particularly the one about geocaches on public land.

There are 4-5 on public land adjacent to my house and the landmanager has a specific policy against them. They have not been removed yet since the person who would do this is busy doing other things. (I am not sure of the exact number since I do not know for sure that the 5th one is actually on the parcel of public land I am speaking of.)

The main objection to my posts seems to be my contention that I should take a geocache I find.

Everyone seems to ignore the fact that I would like to give the owner time to remove it first and my committment to post a message indicating the the geocache should be archived. I have never once said that I would remove a geocache that was properly placed or one which has a special dispensation from the land manager. I think I have been clear that I am only talking about geocaches that are placed contrary to the specific policy of the public land manager.

One person quite rightly said that a geocache could be large and orange but, if sanctioned by the land manager, I should leave it. I entirely agree.

What I am asking about is a geocache that is placed where it is not permitted. Forget the maybes and what ifs. Imagine that a geocache of this type exits and let's talk about what should be done with that geocache. Let's not muddy the issue with any extraneous issues. Again - what about the geocache that is placed where it is not permitted. What should be done with it?

So, let's leave aside my suggestion that I remove these. Would you agree that a geocache that is placed on public lands contrary to the land management's policy should be removed by the land manager?

If you think that it should be removed by the land manager (and I think everyone agrees that it should) then why is it wrong for me to remove it? If it should not be there, why does it matter who removes it?

Again, I am not talking about going out and taking it without any warning. I have asked how much notice the owner of a geocache should or would need. I suggested two weeks. If this is not reasonable then how much time is?

The suggestion that it is not up to me to remove the geocache does not make sense to me. If it should not be there, am I not doing a public service by removing it? Alerting the landmanager and waiting for them only forces a public entity to spend time and money on something that I will do sooner and for free. What is wrong with that?

Thanks for your consideration.

Les

1.7k · November 20, 2003

(edited away: someone else said what I wanted to.)

Edited November 20, 2003 by parkrrrr

November 20, 2003

Idiots like Tadpole are why membership should not be free. My guess is cache trashers would not be willing to spend the money... I would bet he is anti-dog in parks too.

Edited November 20, 2003 by Scott Johnson

6.4k · November 20, 2003

So, let's leave aside my suggestion that I remove these. Would you agree that a geocache that is placed on public lands contrary to the land management's policy should be removed by the land manager?

If you think that it should be removed by the land manager (and I think everyone agrees that it should) then why is it wrong for me to remove it? If it should not be there, why does it matter who removes it?

Again, I am not talking about going out and taking it without any warning. I have asked how much notice the owner of a geocache should or would need. I suggested two weeks. If this is not reasonable then how much time is?

The suggestion that it is not up to me to remove the geocache does not make sense to me. If it should not be there, am I not doing a public service by removing it? Alerting the landmanager and waiting for them only forces a public entity to spend time and money on something that I will do sooner and for free. What is wrong with that?

Thanks for your consideration.

Les

What if you live in one of many states where sex between unmarried couples is illegal?

There is a law against it, you KNOW people are having sex, and the police don't seem to have the time to do anything about it.

Shouldn't YOU do something, since you are ready, willing, and able-bodied?

9.4k · November 20, 2003

What I am asking about is a geocache that is placed where it is not permitted. Forget the maybes and what ifs. Imagine that a geocache of this type exits and let's talk about what should be done with that geocache. Let's not muddy the issue with any extraneous issues. Again - what about the geocache that is placed where it is not permitted. What should be done with it?

So, let's leave aside my suggestion that I remove these. Would you agree that a geocache that is placed on public lands contrary to the land management's policy should be removed by the land manager?

If you think that it should be removed by the land manager (and I think everyone agrees that it should) then why is it wrong for me to remove it? If it should not be there, why does it matter who removes it?

The cache owner must be contacted. The cache should not be removed (and especially not thrown in the trash) until he/she has the chance to respond to your placement question. If you can't get ahold of the owner, maybe he's in Iraq for 6 months, contact the local approver or the local geocaching association if there is one. One of these people may be able to contact him/her.

If you still can't get ahold of the owner, contact the land manager. Let them know your concerns (i.e. some people are going onto the land picking up trash and signing a logbook saying when and where and you would like it to stop) Look at the picture of the trash bags Jeremy posted further up this page as proof that this actually happens. Let the land manager decide for himself by SHOWING him the cache and the surrounding area that is free of garbage. If he wants to remove it, let him. It's 'his' decision to do so, not yours. If he's too busy to go with you, then the environment must not really be in bad shape after all.

November 20, 2003

Idiots like him are why membership should not be free. My guess is cache trashers would not be willing to spend the money...

Gee thanks Scott. I am an idiot because you don't agree with me.

I love to get off your list of idiots. If you have the time, could you at least read my post and address my questions? I mean you don't have to but I doubt you're an idiot by your own definition and maybe I could learn something about this issue from you.

You obviously don't agree with me. Why?

Les.

Edited November 20, 2003 by lessenergy

2.7k · November 20, 2003

The only time you should remove a cache is when the land-owner/manager SPECIFICALLY gives you permission - you are then acting as as agent of the owner/manager. The cache should be given to the landowner/manager, not thrown out. If it is on 'their' land, they should be the ones to chuck it or return it, as they see fit.

And as a courtesy, asking the cache to be archived would be nice, as well as giving the cache-placer notice. Although in that, too, I'd inform the land manager and provide them with the email address of the cache-placer, as well as the cache page itself so they can contact Geocaching.com admins... if they give you the go-ahead, then it was their call to do so.

Who knows, maybe the cache's DO have specific permission that you are unaware of?

Edited November 20, 2003 by New England n00b

3.9k · November 20, 2003

While I can appreciate some of what you said, how in the world does it effect you personally one way or the other. Do you not sleep at night knowing that there are caches out there?

What really strikes me as odd is this statement that you don't seem to be able to address.

I think it takes away from the natural beauty of the land

Once again...

Can you cite a specific instance where you feel a geocache takes away from the natural beauty of the land?

What are you basing that statement on?

2.7k · November 20, 2003

I just looked at the cache-in/trash out forum, and I see why you might think there are so few respones there - the forum isn't complete. There were a good many more posts before the transition.

Still, many people just do it and don't talk about it.

November 20, 2003

The only time you should remove a cache is when the land-owner/manager SPECIFICALLY gives you permission - you are then acting as as agent of the owner/manager. The cache should be given to the landowner/manager, not thrown out. If it is on 'their' land, they should be the ones to chuck it or return it, as they see fit.

And as a courtesy, asking the cache to be archived would be nice, as well as giving the cache-placer notice. Although in that, too, I'd inform the land manager and provide them with the email address of the cache-placer, as well as the cache page itself so they can contact Geocaching.com admins... if they give you the go-ahead, then it was their call to do so.

Who knows, maybe the cache's DO have specific permission that you are unaware of?

First off I think a warning and a request to archive the cache are essential and the only courteous thing to do. Removing a cache without doing both would be a dis-service to everyone involved.

I can also see getting the land managers specific instructions to remove the cache. That makes a lot of sense. I can also see leaving the geocache with the land manager - assuming he or she wants it.

Does this make sense to everyone else?

Les.

Edited November 20, 2003 by lessenergy

9.4k · November 20, 2003

The new site only shows topics where a post has been made in the last 30 days. It isn't a hugely used forum section since it is more of a tool to announce cleanups. As with most cleaning, the popular time is in the Spring.

We promoted it to its own area so it is a constant reminder about how easy it is to pack trash out when geocaching. Most people don't boast about it. They just do it.

9.4k · November 20, 2003

Lessenergy, why don't you spend less energy worrying about someone else having fun of 'your' public land and go out and have some fun yourself? From your first 7 posts, the vibe I get from you is that since you are not part of the 'club', you don't want anyone else to be either.

24.7k · November 20, 2003

Sorry, I was typing my posts as other replies came in. I appreciate the reasoned replies.

OK so, unless someone objects with good reason, here is what I am going to do:

1) I will locate geocaches on public land

2) If it is permitted, I leave it but if f the land manager has a policy against them then I will post a message asking the owner to remove it (is 2 weeks enough time)

3) After two weeks (or whatever, I'll be guided by the collective wisdom here) I pack it out and throw it away since the owner obviously has no interest in it.

Makes sense?

L.E.

Sure it makes sence if you were the landowner and acted under their authority.

Otherwise you are stealing what doesn't belong to you. You can rationalize it until you are blue in the face but unless the landowner or cache owner askes for your help it's theft.

2.7k · November 20, 2003

The new site only shows topics where a post has been made in the last 30 days. It isn't a hugely used forum section since it is more of a tool to announce cleanups. As with most cleaning, the popular time is in the Spring.

Ah, 30 days, got it. I like these new boards... or mebbe it's just my addiction being 'fixed' since I haven't been able to cache in the last coupla weeks...

November 20, 2003

While I can appreciate some of what you said, how in the world does it effect you personally one way or the other. Do you not sleep at night knowing that there are caches out there?

What really strikes me as odd is this statement that you don't seem to be able to address.

I think it takes away from the natural beauty of the land

Once again...

Can you cite a specific instance where you feel a geocache takes away from the natural beauty of the land?

What are you basing that statement on?

Hi J&M. Sorry for not responding to this specific question before. I missed it amongst all the rest of the comments.

And I agree, my statement is not as clear as I intended. Here is what I meant by it:

There are many places that are set aside by governments (public lands) and the goal of those governments is to maintain, as much as practical, an undisturbed natural state - National Parks, the BWCA etc. (I know there are exceptions even in these areas.)

Since these areas are meant to be as undisturbed as possible or at least undisturbed except in accordance with the wishes of the land managers, any geocache in those areas takes away from the "natural beauty" of the area.

Sure, if I am lucky, I'll come across a geocache accidentally but just having these placed throughout an otherwise pristine area makes them less pristine. Just because I can't see it or find it easily does not mean that a geocache has not detracted from the "natural beauty" of an area.

Of course some public lands are more pristine than others but, as the goal of public lands is to protect them from the evidence of people (again, except as decided by the land manager) then any geocache detracts from that goal.

I'll tell you the reason that this is an issue for me - This past summer I was on in a public wilderness park. Although heavily used, it was spotlessly clean. Not one bit of garbage anywhere and the only evidence of human use was a marked trail set up by the land managers.

I met a group of people there who were there specifically to place a geocache. Their reasons for doing so were admirable. They wanted to give people a reason to visit an amazing piece of the Earth. Afterwards, I thought about it. The land managers have a specific policy against geocaches on the land and now there is some bit of man-made trash hidden there somewhere. Now, this formerly perfectly preserved piece of the world is less perfectly preserved. (Sorry for the word "trash", I know this will raise the ire of some but I can't think of an alternative that describes it).

Having realized that a geocache is definitely not appropriate in some circumstances, it now seems obvious (to me at least, I am not asking you to agree with me) that geocaches anywhere on public lands without the land managers permission detract from the natural beauty of the lands we want to protect.

I hope that answers your quesiton.

Les.

3.9k · November 20, 2003

Maybe you could find it in your heart to answer one of my questions. Try this.

Do you have a problem with geocaching if it's done with permission? You obviously do not have enough experience or information about it to make a decision one way or the other as to what effect, if any, it has to the environment. Surely you can agree with that.

It seems to me that you're trying to make a point. However you have failed thus far to back any of your statements up with any facts. Help me, I'm all ears.

-I think it takes away from the natural beauty of the land.

-The bushwhacking and destruction to the environment is getting out of control.

-Animals eating and choking on the caches.

-You can make excuses and lie that you are actually cleaning up the area. We both know that is b*******

Once again, I ask you. What are you basing these comments on? These are very specific complaints. All I ask is that you give us some specific examples. If you can't, and only if you can't, then your argument holds no water, this thread should be closed and your access to this site should no longer be allowed.

Do we have a deal?

November 20, 2003

Maybe you could find it in your heart to answer one of my questions. Try this.

Do you have a problem with geocaching if it's done with permission? You obviously do not have enough experience or information about it to make a decision one way or the other as to what effect, if any, it has to the environment. Surely you can agree with that.

It seems to me that you're trying to make a point. However you have failed thus far to back any of your statements up with any facts. Help me, I'm all ears.

-I think it takes away from the natural beauty of the land.

-The bushwhacking and destruction to the environment is getting out of control.

-Animals eating and choking on the caches.

-You can make excuses and lie that you are actually cleaning up the area. We both know that is b*******

Once again, I ask you. What are you basing these comments on? These are very specific complaints. All I ask is that you give us some specific examples. If you can't, and only if you can't, then your argument holds no water, this thread should be closed and your access to this site should no longer be allowed.

Do we have a deal?

J&M.

I did not say any of the things you quote me as saying except the "natural beauty" one. Others, not me, said the rest. I tried to explain my natural beauty comment above.

The moderators can ban me from the forum and close this thread but I don't see any reason to. I am not being rude or insulting (although I have been insulted.)

Why should I be banned or why should the thread be locked?

And, finally, I thought I was very clear. I have no problem with geocaching if it is done with permission. In fact, I think it is amazing.

Les.

Edited November 20, 2003 by lessenergy

24.7k · November 20, 2003

There are many places that are set aside by governments (public lands) and the goal of those governments is to maintain, as much as practical, an undisturbed natural state - National Parks, the BWCA etc. (I know there are exceptions even in these areas.)

Generally speaking, specific parks are set aside for natural beauty and have rules and regs for their protection for current and future generations.

However most public lands is multi use. Geocaching is a use. Just as you tromping around these same lands looking for trash is a use.

Your time would be better served picking up condoms, and beer cans. But then you can't find those people to stir up now can you?

38.2k · November 20, 2003

Sure, if I am lucky, I'll come across a geocache accidentally but just having these placed throughout an otherwise pristine area makes them less pristine. Just because I can't see it or find it easily does not mean that a geocache has not detracted from the "natural beauty" of an area.

By that definition, both your being there and the trail that takes you there detract from the "natural beauty" of the area.

The land managers have a specific policy against geocaches on the land

Then bring it to the attention of this website. They do not condone illegal cache placements and do what they can to avoid them. At times, they may miss one. Let them know. The "archive this cache" button is available to you.

Having realized that a geocache is definitely not appropriate in some circumstances, it now seems obvious (to me at least, I am not asking you to agree with me) that geocaches anywhere on public lands without the land managers permission detract from the natural beauty of the lands we want to protect.

Wrongo boyo. Properly placed, geocaches don't detract from the "natural beauty" of an area at all. If you're on a cliff overlooking a valley, does the possibility that someone left an orange peel 3 miles away detract from the "natural beauty"? If the land manager allowed the cache, does that really change things?

If so, consider this: Near my house, they just okayed a 177 unit development on a pristine ridge. The "land manager" allowed that. Personally, I'd rather have a geocache up there. Maybe if more people visited the area to find a geocache and discovered the beauty, there would have been more people to fight the development. Get your freakin' priorities straight bucko!

Edited November 20, 2003 by briansnat

3.9k · November 20, 2003

Obviously I wrote the last statement while you were writing yours. And your right I did miss quote you. My bad. I got you confused with the other wacko. Lets say that cache you spoke of was placed in a manner that did not require someone to go off trail. Let's also say that same cache was placed in an already hollow tree. Under that scenario, what harm could come of the land from that cache being there? For your information, the reason most people hide caches are for the reason you thought was admirable. We want to get people to places we feel are beautiful or interesting. The last thing any of us want is to endanger wildlife, or hurt the environment. Under the guidelines 99% of us follow we are able to accomplish what we want, which is to get the rest of us outside to enjoy our great natural world. And we accomplish that with out compromising the natural beauty of the land. I know this because I have found over 200 caches and in not one instance have I ever seen any degradation of the land. If you were to ask StayFloopy, or CCCooper or any of the many other cachers that have found way more caches than me, I'm sure they would say the same.

As far as locking this thread and banning you, I only suggest that because you can't give us one example of when YOU have seen a geocache take away from the natural beauty of the land. All I'm saying is go out and experience the sport for yourself, build a case with some substance and come back here in a couple of months and try again. Something tells me we won't hear from you.

November 20, 2003

Having realized that a geocache is definitely not appropriate in some circumstances, it now seems obvious (to me at least, I am not asking you to agree with me) that geocaches anywhere on public lands without the land managers permission detract from the natural beauty of the lands we want to protect.

The real question is why are you still debating this? People have basically told you the same things about 37 different ways. I see three possibilities:

1. You really want information so that you can be sure you've formed the correct opinion.

2. You saw a geocache once, didn't like the idea, and you are here to change our opinions - make us change our evil ways.

3. You are here to stir up trouble, albeit in an unusually polite manner. The longer you can keep this going, the better for you. Perhaps this is one big joke for you. Perhaps it's a bid for attention. The more spurious rationalizations you generate the better - it just keeps the topic going.

I think we can discount reason #1. You've clearly made up your mind. You've decided it's OK to take a cache because it offends some abstract notion you have of the natural world. You've rationalized this, and nothing any of us will say makes any difference.

As for reason #2 - well, good luck to you. You are unlikely to convince us that our game is harmful to the environment, particularly compared to many other activities.

That leaves reason #3. If this isn't the case, and you really are sincere about this, please feel free to prove me wrong. List the caches you think are questionable, and I'm sure the person who approved these caches will contact you. The cache approvers typically know and talk with the local land managers, almost certainly to a greater extent than you do. Caches must be approved before they are listed on this site. This process isn't perfect, so it's possible you have in fact found a mistake.

So please, list your specific complaints - the problem caches that are placed where they are not allowed. (Not there's 4 or 5 bad ones in the woods someplace - the cache or waypoint names!) Otherwise, I think this is an exercise in mental masturbation on your part.

3.9k · November 20, 2003

I'm sure this topic will continue. But without me, I'm going to bed.

November 20, 2003

Consider this, geocaches are private property of their owners in the statutes I read (these may vary state to state).

They are not litter nor abandoned property if marked with ownership/contact info.

As such, if you remove it, you are stealing. If taking possession of it in such a manner, the law places the duty upon you to make all due effort to return it properly.

IE, you are required by law to replace it unless you can contact the owner and make alternate arrangements.

If the land manager removes it, he actually assumes the same responsibility!

This has nothing to do with this community or anyone's opinions--it's a matter of law.

Taking private property is illegal. Taking another's property requires one to return it.

Obviously the statues vary state to state but property laws go back a very long way!

(I'm also no expert, I simply have read the statutes.)

A responsible land manager, were he to ask you to remove them, would be assuming the legal liability thereof, since he's declaring you his agent. If you wanted to remove those caches, that would be your safest way to go legally speaking. Then the land manager could be arrested/sued rather than you--assuming you can validate that you were acting as his agent. He'd, of course, want you to turn them over to him, so he can return the property to the owners.

Have you considered however, that the prohibition against geocaches might be for liability purposes?

This is one reason to NOT ask for permission when placing caches (or letterboxes for that matter--which are becoming prolific as well).

If anything negative occurs as a result of a cache NOT placed with permission, there's no claim against the land owners. If they grant permission they open themselves up to that type of liability.

(It's sorta' like motorcycle helmet laws, they aren't there to be enforced or protect bikers from injury, they are there so when a car hits a biker and cripples him, they {and their insurance/our rates} don't have to pay for undue damages 'cause he chose to ride helmetless.)

Enjoy,

Randy

3.9k · November 20, 2003

Well said Mr. Benchmark.

All in favor of closing this useless thread say 'OOH, OOH ME!!'

All opposed say 'I like mental masturbation, please keep it open'

My Vote: 'OOH, OOH ME!'

38.2k · November 20, 2003

I vote we let Mr. Lessenergy make additional, ignorant posts so he can further display how ill informed he is about the subject of geocaching.

1.4k · November 20, 2003

Les, do you think benchmarks placed by the NGS and its counterparts, which are often well off the beaten path and in quite remote locations, detract from the 'natural beauty' of the land? If so, are you going to attempt to remove them?

1.7k · November 20, 2003

A land manager or land owner has certain rights and privileges that you do not.

He can confiscate a cache, attempt to notify the owner, and eventually toss it, or not - depending on the laws of that area. You don't have the same right.

If a car was parked illegally on the same land, you would have no right to move it, take it, nor vandalize it. The land manager would probably have the right to move the car, but not to steal it, nor damage it.

If someone was illegally camping, you would have no right to take their tent, or burn it, or even harass the people.

Taking the law into you own hands is called vigilantism.

As everyone else here is saying, click the archive button or go tattle to the land manager. You do not have the right, nor privilege to do more.

November 20, 2003

I think there is a 97% probability that "lessenergy" is the same person as "vonbluvens". It is amazing, really, that such a person as "lessenergy" would immediately show up on the first day the forums reopen moments after the person who originated this thread was banned.

I think only 97% likely, though, as the reopening of the forums could well have served as a synchronizing event, allowing multiple lunatics to finally froth at the mouth at the same time in a public forum. If they are the same person, they are relatively sophisticated - you have to give 'em that!

Really, though, it makes little difference if they are two individuals or just one. Whatever the case, it certainly seems to me that they've derived several hours of entertainment from all of this.

1.4k · November 20, 2003

Is this a new method of pirating a cache?

I love a good pirate story.

*****

2.6k · November 20, 2003

Animals eating and choking on the caches.

Like the poor frog here? ->

November 20, 2003

I guess I feel the need because geocaches on public land really irritate me. I think it takes away from the natural beauty of the land. Sure they are hidden but so is garbage in a landfill.
.....

I guess, I want to remove them rather than let the land managers do it since they are chronically overworked otherwise. I have no particular need to hike a geocache out of the woods somewhere - I just want them removed and I know if I do it, it'll get done.

....

Why should I rely on some public servant to do the right thing when I am ready, willing and able?

P.S. And, if I may say, you guys are way more polite than I expected. Thanks.

Where else are they going to be hidden if not on public property? If you are being serious, then you simply do not like Geocaches. Your dislike has a very low tolerance threshold.

Guess what? People who don't like harmless Geocaches and who threaten to steal private property really really really irritate me. They take away from my enjoyment of the land and the natural beauty of human decency (they also take away from my enjoyment of these great new forums). And since they are not hidden, they are worse than "garbage in a landfill". If I meet one while Geocaching, I guess I would want to "remove them" so to speak, and I know if I do it he'll "get done". I think that would be the right thing, since I am ready, willing and able. (yeah sure "taking one out" would probably be illegal - just like stealing private property- but its a nice thought).

Is that still polite enough for you?

1.6k · November 20, 2003

Have you considered however, that the prohibition against geocaches might be for liability purposes?

This is one reason to NOT ask for permission when placing caches (or letterboxes for that matter--which are becoming prolific as well).

This is a very valid point! Most land managers I've come across are in this camp. The rest either have either outright refused and prohibited them, while others realize the merit of having caches on their land and are enthusiastic about them.

Another variant is the local manager approves of them, but his higher-ups don't. These won't actively search out and remove caches because they personally may like the idea, but have to toe the company line.

So, you see, there are variations of "caches aren't allowed" and they range from outright prohibitation to "I don't want to know they are there."

If a land manager really didn't want them there he'd be taking a few minutes every month to do a quick search and then asking volunteers to pick them up. Otherwise, they really don't mind afterall. Heck, when they are approached by some of these "do-gooders" they may be thinking "Kid, go away. You're bothering me."

CR

November 20, 2003

So, after all this, exactly what is the name of this "misplaced" cache, and where is it located? Have you visited the cache's site and seen how many people have found it?

38.2k · November 20, 2003

So, you see, there are variations of "caches aren't allowed" and they range from outright prohibitation to "I don't want to know they are there."

If a land manager really didn't want them there he'd be taking a few minutes every month to do a quick search and then asking volunteers to pick them up. Otherwise, they really don't mind afterall. Heck, when they are approached by some of these "do-gooders" they may be thinking "Kid, go away. You're bothering me."

This is the true in many cases. A lot of land managers don't have a problem with geocaching, but don't want to stick their necks out by officially sanctioning the sport. So they take the Sgt. Schultz route ("I know nooothing, noooothing"). This means that they are giving the sport their tacit approval by not making an effort to stop it, or forumlating a policy against it.

For example, I have a cache in a county park, placed without "permission" that has logs in it from the park's naturalist and other park staff. It's still there, so they don't seem to have a problem with it.

Edited November 20, 2003 by briansnat

November 20, 2003

It's funny to watch everyone "testing the boundaries." Like kids in a weapons locker.

Can I play too???

Last time I played there they kicked me out because I didn't play nice

Edited November 20, 2003 by Cooter13

1.5k · November 20, 2003

The 'logic' behind the troll posting is funny.

It just baffles me that in some areas, horseback riding/archery/nuclear testing is allowed, but placing an ammo can under a tree is taboo.

Meh. To an extent I understand the NPS thing, but disagree with their reasons. I'm just glad NFS lands haven't become as narrow-minded and allow the activity withg few stipulations.

[boundary testing]

pee, poo, foo, noo, navicache, waypoint, filth, flarn flarn flarn, filth

[/boundary testing]

24.7k · November 20, 2003

Some people have the gift of well worded bulls*** that sounds reasonable. This troll thread is a case in point. In the words of Shakespeare. Bulls*** by any other name still stinks.

This guy needs to get a job as a lobbyist. On second thought he should continue to troll. At least we won’t take it seriously and pass bad laws.

The National Park Service Did The Right Thing By

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