Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
hydee

Geocaching On National Wildlife Refuges

Recommended Posts

These concepts give me cause for concern:

 

by ju66l3r:

Until the other 2.21 billion acres of the US are covered with geocaches or we calmly become accepted by the Wildlife and Fish offices, I'm not sure why the fervor.

 

by TEAM 360:

I have to agree with ju66l3r on this one, there is plenty of space still left in the U.S. to geocache. Why get on their bad side by demanding that every square inch of soil be available for caches?

 

Those ideas have merit at face value, but the issue is more of precedent. In the original notice they references the NPS ban on geocaching. Goverment agencies as a matter of course look toward each other. Local towns and cities often say, "what are our neighboring town do about this?" They act in accord without reason or rational.

 

Sure, each instance may be conceded, until ALL federal lands are off limits. Then the states will evaluate it according to the fed's leadership. Now all state properties are off limits. Guess what's next? Sure, that's a little extreme an example, but I believe our preference would be a more moderate restriction.

 

Therefore, we need to negotiate according to their perspective. Sure, certain wildlife refuges are innappropriate places. OTOH, some would benefit from smart, educational caches.

 

An outright ban doesn't take those later regions into account and adds fuel to the argument, "you are banned on NPS and USFS lands so ours too..."

 

by GeoWorms:

A big campaign might just enlighten an entire population of land managers who are not currently aware of the sport. Their knee jerk reaction might be the same as the National Parks, and we might start losing ground at a much quicker rate.

 

Enlightening folks would be great as it would halt the ignorant, "I don't know what it is so it must be bad" knee-jerk responses that currently exist. It also allows us to promote good PR rather than seeming subversive.

 

An example might help, my uncle wanted to build a dock longer than permitted in his town to have 24 hr. access despite tide level. So he went and applied for a dock three times longer. Oh my gosh, the fervor! Everybody was in an uproar, the neighbors, the city.

 

So he agreed to shorten it. That was acceptable with everyone. Of course, it was the length he originally desired.

 

In our case, the response was SO over the top, thousands of dollars of fines, prison, legal action and bigger fines against GC.com all threatened. I don't think responding mildly in the fact of all that is useful.

 

However, now that the response has apparently opened their eyes to the abuse of power of that enforcement office, hopefully appropriate guidelines will be instituted with our input.

 

Enjoy,

 

Randy

Share this post


Link to post
It's not really relevant to the topic at hand anymore (not that it was much to begin with).

I cound not agree more.

Share this post


Link to post

What would be useful, pragmatically, would be updates to the cache placement guidelines that tell new(er) cache hiders how to cope with the NP/NWR bans - how to construct physical/virtual combos that are interesting and fun and don't violate the stated land use of those areas. A few paragraphs and a few examples from TPTB would be good, not just "don't". I also hope that virtual caches stand a better chance of being approved in NWRs, assuming they are described to the approver in enough detail.

 

One thing I appreciate about geocaching is that it is a framework that allows the creativity of it's community to come into play. As a game, it's not all 'figured out' in advance by someone. I would like to see some creative solutions to constructing caches that show others these beautiful areas.

 

How about "Identification" caches, where you have to follow a course and at certain waypoints record what significant features are found there -- a 'multi-virtual'. I personally like the idea of guidebook caches. A cacher-written guidebook is cached outside the area and contains coordinates and interpretive material within the area, to be returned to the cache when the tour is over. I'm sure you all have loads of other ideas.

 

 

That said, imo if the NWR system in my area really cared about litter, they would go out and pick some of it up. So there.

Share this post


Link to post

To maintain readability and keep this thread on topic several posts have been removed for being abusive or off topic. Please keep this thread on topic and polite.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
What would be useful, pragmatically, would be updates to the cache placement guidelines that tell new(er) cache hiders how to cope with the NP/NWR bans - how to construct physical/virtual combos that are interesting and fun and don't violate the stated land use of those areas.  A few paragraphs and a few examples from TPTB would be good, not just "don't".

The Requirements/Guidelines for Hiding a Cache already suggest "making the [off-limits] location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate." The volunteer cache reviewers regularly suggest this alternative when working with a geocacher who wants to place a cache within a restricted area.

I also hope that virtual caches stand a better chance of being approved in NWRs, assuming they are described to the approver in enough detail.
I'm already working on one for a National Wildlife Refuge here in Pennsylvania. There were two caches in the refuge; one has already been confiscated and I alerted the owner about the remaining one. A different geocacher would like to use the location as a virtual cache. It's the remains of an old spring house, complete with historic interpretive signs, accessible by a marked public trail. I don't think that either a physical or a virtual cache at this spring house would adversely affect the environment, the sex lives of waterfowl, etc. Virtuals do "stand a better chance" because they meet one part of the test... a physical cache cannot be placed nearby... but they still must be interesting, unique and identifiable objects, not just a trail or a nice view.
How about "Identification" caches, where you have to follow a course and at certain waypoints record what significant features are found there -- a 'multi-virtual'.  I personally like the idea of guidebook caches.  A cacher-written guidebook is cached outside the area and contains coordinates and interpretive material within the area, to be returned to the cache when the tour is over.  I'm sure you all have loads of other ideas.
I've approved many of these, and as a geocacher I personally find them much more enjoyable, on average, than a single-stage virtual cache. There is a cache in a small town in Ohio where you pick up a cassette tape or CD at the first stage, and play it as you drive around the town visiting the cache locations. You get a tour narrated by a lifelong resident of the town. Edited by Keystone Approver

Share this post


Link to post

OK folks, I took my time reading ALL the intelligents points of discussion placed here, and I appreciate everyones opinion. I did this BEFORE I posted, and this is nothing more than my reflection on ALL of them. I don't mean to pick on anyone, nor do I consider flaming good form. This is a discussion, that does afford various arguments, for the sake to inform, discuss, etc.

 

1. "It's just a game" It ceases to be a *game* when CITO takes place, or we pay fees for entrance to these areas.

 

2. I wonder how many different ways we could define *otherwise leaving*, which is the language in the regs? Many times I have come across expended brass/shotgun cartridges from areas where hunting is allowed, but geocaching seems to be in violation. How about that? Would they fine/imprison someone for dropped/lost keys, pins, change/money, etc.? If not, why not? It would seem to be left...

 

3. To the folks who seem unconcerned with the *small* amount of area(s) involved in this imminent restriction: what about folks who are surrounded by the 4% of total FWS land, and LITTLE else, and have to travel VERY far to do any other caching? This would be discrimitive in my eyes. Other posts relate that the areas seem to be ever-expanding, or not easily defined, resulting in widely varying amounts of acreage. Some amounts are very significant. "Then I did some searching...The Refuge System currently controls more than 95 million acres of land (and they want more). There are more Refuge lands than there are National Parks."

Heck, if I was surrounded by FWS lands, and had to travel more than 50 miles to pursue my hobby, this would BUG me.

 

4. Shamelessly off-topic: MANY homeless people CHOOSE to be homeless, this IS a right.

 

5. IMO: Woods walking (what some call bushwhacking) by 1-2 cachers/week, 5 at most from what I've observed from cache logs, does not equal the amount of movement that game conduct on any given day/night/week/month/year. How can this be damaging? Yes, I know some folks are steamrollers in EVERYTHING they do in life, and we ALL pay a price for the wake leave, but a process does exist for reporting this, so...

 

6. Section 26.32 says:

"Recreational uses such as, but not limited to, sightseeing, nature

observation and photography, interpretive centers and exhibits, hunting and fishing, bathing, boating, camping, ice skating, picnicking, swimming, water skiing, and other similar activities may be permitted on national wildlife refuges. When such uses are permitted the public will be notified under the provisions of this subchapter C."

Since when is geocaching NOT an *other similar activity.*?

 

7. It would seem that the Refuge Managers have the authority to determine if/that casual hiking, jogging, OR geocaching is appropriate or not, as it is clearly stated in the regs. I say approach them, directly, and find out what their read on this is.

 

8. It seems to me that some enviro-friendly lobbying group felt they got their toes stepped on, and hence, pushed the right buttons, and now we have this situation. To me, this kind of attitude/response is no different than eco-terrorism, as it has the effect of deterring folks from living their lives, and doing what they would ordinarily and HARMLESSLY, do in NWS areas.

 

9. Also slightly off-topic, but, should you get confronted by someone enforcing a reg: Someone posted they got a response from somebody in FWS, who was open-minded to geocaching, and this individual stated: "They're cops, and you know how cops can be". I don't know if he was referring to Rangers, or Police, but the VAST majority of Police officers have only ONE thing in mind when they go to work: To go home again. They are just as human as everyone else, and just as entropic (trying to find their lowest energy state). Jerks have short life-spans in Law Enforcement, or they get promoted OUT of direct public contact (Peter Principle). Cops know the law, and their jobs, and they realize that doing their job involves using a LOT of judgement. None of them look forward to ANOTHER thing they have to watch out for, especially obtuse, arcane violations of ridiculous statues. Please don't take anything out on those that are looking out for us, just give them a smile, and say thanks for being there. They rarely get that.

 

10. Things in the US of A work very differently these days; WAY outside what the Constitution EVER could've accounted for, and so do the laws, rules and regs of nearly anyplace. For example: how many times do we see court cases being tried/convicted/acquitted in the media these days? Yes, 12 folks sit in a box and hear the lurid details of a case, but sometimes we hear more details than they do. i.e. Muhammad vs. Malvo case, Malvo jurors were NOT allowed to hear the 911 tapes, and HE was the shooter, yet Muhammad jurors DID hear them.

My point: forget writing letters/emails; the press has given us TONS of publicity, all positive. Why not drop the quarters to them about this predicament, IF it becomes effective? If I get nailed for geocaching, I know my first response will be Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe, and THEIR first response will be to IGNITE the media fuse. THAT is how things happen these days, whether we like it or not. It's called legal hell-raising, and NOBODY more than the media loves to do this.

 

Just my observations, and discussion points to further the thread...

 

I say, CACHE ONE....

Share this post


Link to post
How about "Identification" caches, where you have to follow a course and at certain waypoints record what significant features are found there -- a 'multi-virtual'. I personally like the idea of guidebook caches. A cacher-written guidebook is cached outside the area and contains coordinates and interpretive material within the area, to be returned to the cache when the tour is over. I'm sure you all have loads of other ideas.

 

Although not done because of park manager restictions, here's one thatgathers clues from three covered bridges along a route to get the coordinates of the cache container hidden closeby. If it was a NWR, you'd place th4e container outside the refuge but the "view points" would be inside the park.

 

And another that takes you pretty mountain scenery using 4 covered bridges along the tour as key points to find to gather answer for the virtual quiz.

 

The best part of these caches are the placing of them because of the research and planning that goes into it. I wish more people would do these.

 

Alan :)

Share this post


Link to post

1.  "It's just a game"  It ceases to be a *game* when CITO takes place, or we pay fees for entrance to these areas.

 

2.  I wonder how many different ways we could define *otherwise leaving*, which is the language in the regs?...

 

3.  To the folks who seem unconcerned with the *small* amount of area(s) involved in this imminent restriction:  what about folks who are surrounded by the 4% of total FWS land, and LITTLE else, and have to travel VERY far to do any other caching? 

 

5.  IMO:  Woods walking (what some call bushwhacking) by 1-2 cachers/week, 5 at most from what I've observed from cache logs, does not equal the amount of movement that game conduct on any given day/night/week/month/year.  How can this be damaging?  Yes, I know some folks are steamrollers in EVERYTHING they do in life, and we ALL pay a price for the wake leave, but a process does exist for reporting this, so...

 

6.  Since when is geocaching NOT an *other similar activity.*?

 

My point:  forget writing letters/emails; the press has given us TONS of publicity, all positive.  Why not drop the quarters to them about this predicament, IF it becomes effective?  If I get nailed for geocaching, I know my first response will be Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe, and THEIR first response will be to IGNITE the media fuse.  THAT is how things happen these days, whether we like it or not.  It's called legal hell-raising, and NOBODY more than the media loves to do this. 

My responses in like order:

 

1: Not true. I play roller hockey. I pay an arena to play on their floor during the winter. I am still playing a game. CITO is ancillary to the game of geocaching. Some baseball players donate their time to charities. They are still only playing a game. This hobby/whatever is still just a fun activity....a "game", as some like. But this is highly semantic and barely tangential to the actual topic. The act of geocaching in NWRs is currently restricted regardless of what you consider it to be.

 

2: You could easily fine a hunter for leaving his shells in an NWR. Just because a hunter is messy does not mean we have any right to "otherwise leave" something. Accidentally leaving something is also not the same as intentionally leaving property...while technically you could be charged (be more careful with your items and there wouldn't be a problem), I'm sure that given the opportunity to retrieve your mistakenly placed item, you would be let go. Unfortunately, at this point we have been specificially notified against any future leaving of items and so accidentally placing a geocache in an NWR is impossible.

 

3: Life is sometimes unfair. It is not the responsibility of the federal government or geocaching.com to provide you with ample caching grounds within miles of your home. This is not a reason to invade on sections of environment that have been deemed to be necessary to set aside for wildlife. If we can reach a conclusion where those areas can be shared with the wildlife and geocaching, all the better, but the fact that some people have to go over 50 miles currently due to high amounts of NWR can only be motivation for some, but not justification.

 

5: Imagine a scenario where a geocache is placed off of a section of loopy trail. Coming from the east, you could woods-walk 0.5 mi to reach the cache (instead of going 1.5 mi on the trail and only walking 30 ft from a different section of trail), but doing so would have you going directly by the last dozen burrowing owl dens in the world (the trail looped for a reason). Being nocturnal, these owls would be disturbed 2-5x/week (more frequently initially) and their routine and mating would become disturbed and they would die out. This is not *so* far-fetched (other than having such a small number of that owl left in the world) and shows the potential for damage by woods-walking instead of remaining on the trails as *everyone* in the NWR are required to do.

 

6: Since someone in the NWR said "geocaching is not a similar activity". It is now up to us to convince them of otherwise and make geocaching a compatible use for these areas.

 

The media tattling is fairly salacious as we all also like our 15 seconds of fame these days...but it also opens you up to being examined by the same roving eyes looking for "the other angle" and can leave you looking like a ranting loon as easily as the underdog. The best way to convince anyone to help you accomplish something under their control is to speak directly, honestly, and nicely. When that fails, you should begin exploring other options. Again, if it ever needed to come up at a later date, you can easily point to your nice approach and come out looking like the better person for it.

 

EDIT: Ugh, "semantical"...what in the hell was I thinking when I wrote "semantical"...

Edited by ju66l3r

Share this post


Link to post
My responses in like order:

 

1: Not true. I play roller hockey. I pay an arena to play on their floor during the winter. I am still playing a game. CITO is ancillary to the game of geocaching. Some baseball players donate their time to charities. They are still only playing a game. This hobby/whatever is still just a fun activity....a "game", as some like. But this is highly semantical and barely tangential to the actual topic. The act of geocaching in NWRs is currently restricted regardless of what you consider it to be.

 

2: You could easily fine a hunter for leaving his shells in an NWR. Just because a hunter is messy does not mean we have any right to "otherwise leave" something. Accidentally leaving something is also not the same as intentionally leaving property...while technically you could be charged (be more careful with your items and there wouldn't be a problem), I'm sure that given the opportunity to retrieve your mistakenly placed item, you would be let go. Unfortunately, at this point we have been specificially notified against any future leaving of items and so accidentally placing a geocache in an NWR is impossible.

 

3: Life is sometimes unfair. It is not the responsibility of the federal government or geocaching.com to provide you with ample caching grounds within miles of your home. This is not a reason to invade on sections of environment that have been deemed to be necessary to set aside for wildlife. If we can reach a conclusion where those areas can be shared with the wildlife and geocaching, all the better, but the fact that some people have to go over 50 miles currently due to high amounts of NWR can only be motivation for some, but not justification.

 

5: Imagine a scenario where a geocache is placed off of a section of loopy trail. Coming from the east, you could woods-walk 0.5 mi to reach the cache (instead of going 1.5 mi on the trail and only walking 30 ft from a different section of trail), but doing so would have you going directly by the last dozen burrowing owl dens in the world (the trail looped for a reason). Being nocturnal, these owls would be disturbed 2-5x/week (more frequently initially) and their routine and mating would become disturbed and they would die out. This is not *so* far-fetched (other than having such a small number of that owl left in the world) and shows the potential for damage by woods-walking instead of remaining on the trails as *everyone* in the NWR are required to do.

 

6: Since someone in the NWR said "geocaching is not a similar activity". It is now up to us to convince them of otherwise and make geocaching a compatible use for these areas.

 

The media tattling is fairly salacious as we all also like our 15 seconds of fame these days...but it also opens you up to being examined by the same roving eyes looking for "the other angle" and can leave you looking like a ranting loon as easily as the underdog. The best way to convince anyone to help you accomplish something under their control is to speak directly, honestly, and nicely. When that fails, you should begin exploring other options. Again, if it ever needed to come up at a later date, you can easily point to your nice approach and come out looking like the better person for it.

 

You may consider CITO ancillary, but myself, TeacherMatt and MANY others, consider it integral, and a mandatory part of the game...for ourselves, anyway. I guess it's therapeutic for me, instead of getting P.O.'d by the piggery of people before us. This part of it, certainly, FWS should have NO qualms with, and wish more people would engage in.

 

Playing hockey in a pay arena, well, that's form of being a consumer of a business or service. Playing the game/sport is just plain fun, same as geocaching. The decision to make geocaching restricted in these areas now, is arbitrary and unreasonable, and THAT is what/why we are talking, right? After all, when WE pay to enter/use areas/facilities (OR as taxpayers even) aren't we entitled to some say, if not just to enhance/improve the area/facility/service? A good customer service policy (which the gummint knows it should have...hence the heat the IRS has had to deal with in recent years), should be paramount to any healthy bidness. After all, they can make all the money they want for a time, but eventually, if you don't take care of folks, you will cease to survive and your income will fall to nil. Pro athletes donating their time/prestige/talent, that is Good Works, or PR, depending on how ya look at it. Do you think NHL, MLB, NFL, MLS would have them stop. No. Why do you think we see those logos on those commercials?? Who do you think pays for those ads?

 

Before I went out my first time, I attached lanyards to every device I carry, with snap links on my jacket/vest. The areas we do our thing at, when you drop something, it is GONE! :) Whether it be leaves, a cliff, water/pond, darkness. Not to mention, we spend a good amount of money to have leatherman's, swiss army knives, flashlights, etc., and I'm not enabling the forest/pond to have my kind of fun at my expense :) Nor do I wanna give any goodies away, except in an ammo cans/tupperware. :)

 

Life is *sometimes* unfair. Sometimes? If it is this way in your life, lets trade places!! Advantage: God. Nobody EVER said it was fair...the point I was making is, folks did have a shot at these places, and now, for whatever ridiculous reason(s), they do not. Again, this has nothing to do with life, but an unreasonable, arbitrary decision a PERSON made. When God makes decisions, you deal, or not. When people make bad decisions, they should be confronted, enlightened, or whatever, so that a better decision can be (re)enacted. Hence, democracy/progress. Now, if this has to do with geography, people can change wherever they live, if they choose to, to move closer to their hobby/lifestyle, whatever.

 

Owls (or any other endagered game/fowl/fish) will be disturbed by any other roaming game anyway, trails or not. If they have a lot of time on the planet, they would be. If you can keep the game/predators from roaming, whenever, wherever, more power to ya.

 

Yes, it is OUR responsibility to convince the ignorant, that geocaching can benefit everyone: win-win. THAT is the purpose of our discussion, and we stand together here. :)

 

I never said going to the media should be first/only step. Read the *IF* in my post. I was just editorializing on the state of our society, and offering a choice that hadn't been previously discussed. Democracy needs a free press, to be sure, but it has gotten out of control in the US, and some say, the UK too. Privacy issues are steamrolled, and you know how big privacy is these days. How right you are, about taking the chance of laying your life on the (by)line, when going to the press. EVERYTHING about you will undoubtedly be revealed. If someone chooses this method, caveat emptor. I prefer anonymous tips...especially to those who've written well of us, should it come to that :D

 

Yes, we should all live our lives by the Golden Rule. Even when others do not play nice. However, when playing nice doesn't work, escalation is in order (kinda like hockey, huh?). Those of us engaged in this activity are not stupid people. It takes a somewhat higher order of intelligence to succeed in finding caches, whether it be using GPS, solving puzzles or using reason to get to the goal. We are a persistent lot too. This, methinks, will be ANY beauracrats undoing. I would like to see us connect with some other outdoors group (whether it be hunting, REI, ATC, Sierra club, Ducks Unltd), that has a powerful lobby, and maybe we would be talked to/with first, and not just slammed. :) We do have an intelligent point of view to provide, no? I don't believe any of us likes being treated like children/miscreants.

 

Thanks to you for expressing your view on my points, I appreciate it, and I'm sure others do as well. The more we talk about this, the better for everyone, and the activity. Your response/expansion on my points, provides other readers with the opportunity to see another point of view, and/or, see something that I felt was self-evident I wrote, but now realize was not.

 

Thank goodness I figgered out how to work the QUOTE thingy.

 

C'mon folks, whattayathink????

Edited by GEO CHIMP

Share this post


Link to post
ju66l3r 5: Imagine a scenario where a geocache is placed off of a section of loopy trail. Coming from the east, you could woods-walk 0.5 mi to reach the cache (instead of going 1.5 mi on the trail and only walking 30 ft from a different section of trail), but doing so would have you going directly by the last dozen burrowing owl dens in the world (the trail looped for a reason). Being nocturnal, these owls would be disturbed 2-5x/week (more frequently initially) and their routine and mating would become disturbed and they would die out. This is not *so* far-fetched (other than having such a small number of that owl left in the world) and shows the potential for damage by woods-walking instead of remaining on the trails as *everyone* in the NWR are required to do.

 

Am I the only person here thinking that any owl that burrows itself into the ground was probably on its evolutionary way out anyhow? Geocaching then provides a valuable service to the world writ-large. Does anyone really miss the Dodo bird? :)

Share this post


Link to post

Ya know, I also thought about that point too. The word nocturnal is what struck me, not so much the burrowing thing. If these owls are nocturnal, then the cache effecting it would have to be a night cache, and the percentage of night caches is very small anyway. They are more costly (bright eyes, fire tacks/tapes/clips/etc., UV/IR equipment required, etc.). I read some night caches in PA, NJ, OH, and VA, and NONE of them were in the areas we are talking about. Most people who place night caches make them relatively short, definately ON trails, or in urban environs. I just don't see how this can further endanger protected species.....

 

Or maybe I'm just ignorant of some night caches in FWS areas...

Share this post


Link to post

This owl thing is totally OT, but to correct some misconceptions...

 

The ARE nocturnal, which means daylight passage awakening them is disturbing (imagine a couple people tromping past your bed with spotlights at 2 am).

 

Owls are harassed by hawks and crows. If they leave their cover, they'll be harassed all day (imagine aforementioned couple forcing you out of bed onto into the middle of the street and you spent all night dodging the occassional car.)

 

Owls (or any other endagered game/fowl/fish) will be disturbed by any other roaming game anyway, trails or not. If they have a lot of time on the planet, they would be. If you can keep the game/predators from roaming, whenever, wherever, more power to ya.

 

This is EXACTLY what the US FWS does! When I was monitoring endangered piping plover nesting areas here, they setup symbolic fencing to try to keep people and their dogs away (which drove birds off the nests). They did nothing about people walking the beach (which disturbed the plover's feeding habits). They installed fencing over nests (carefully timing the process to keep it as short as possible) to keep domestic cats and domestic dogs as well as natural predators away from the eggs. Since the area was remote, there wasn't much natural predation--but tracks of domestic animals were found. The fencing covered the top to prevent harriers and seagulls from going after the nest.

 

This doesn't change the fact that certain FWS areas (such as those that already support hiking) wouldn't be great for geocaching. An outright ban is simply ignorant.

 

Enjoy,

 

Randy

 

PS: Even the aforementioned area would be conducive to caching late summer through early winter where the informational signage and viewing platforms are!

Share this post


Link to post
They are National Wildlife Refuges for a reason -- sensitive ecosystems that have been set aside to protect wildlife that NEEDS protection.

 

Trapping for recreation and commercial uses is allowed on NWR land. I find it hard to believe that a tupperware container is more harmful to sensitive ecosystems than a steel-jaw leghold trap.

 

I agree there should be a policy on NWR land for geocaching but it shouldn't be to ban it completely.

Share this post


Link to post
They are National Wildlife Refuges for a reason -- sensitive ecosystems that have been set aside to protect wildlife that NEEDS protection.

 

Trapping for recreation and commercial uses is allowed on NWR land. I find it hard to believe that a tupperware container is more harmful to sensitive ecosystems than a steel-jaw leghold trap.

 

I agree there should be a policy on NWR land for geocaching but it shouldn't be to ban it completely.

Just in case anyone else missed it...I reiterate that hunting, fishing, trapping, and all of the other wonderful "worse-than-geocaching" arguments are misdirected. This really should not be about "what's more wrong for an NWR". The current rules on NWR lands allow for very highly constrained hunting/fishing/trapping. The current rules also allow for them to outright ban geocaching. Asking "If X, then why not Y" will only get you the answer "Because we can" and it's a fairly specious argument on both sides at that point with no reason for either side to negotiate.

 

Instead the question should be "Can we establish a fair use policy with you for the future?".

 

I know that it may feel that they are being indignant, but in reality, they may just be naive...at worst, they are overly cautious with the unknown.

 

I hope we can focus less on hurt feelings, conspiracies, and public-official bashing and instead focus more on things like the compatible use webpage earlier in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Instead the question should be "Can we establish a fair use policy with you for the future?".

 

I just though that deserved being said again

Share this post


Link to post
I know that it may feel that they are being indignant, but in reality, they may just be naive...at worst, they are overly cautious with the unknown.

Naive? Unknown? You are being very fair here.

 

Seems like ignorance to me...geocaching didn't start yesterday. Policy making didn't start yesterday either. Something else is at work here.

 

Somebody (the missing name on the letter that started this topic) wants it the way they want it, for the reasons they want it, and don't feel compelled to explain their rationale nor actions.

Share this post


Link to post

I love living in your world. It is not only fair, it is fun, honest and good natured. But, some of our opposition live in a different world.

 

I remember a USFWS law enforcement agent telling me a story that is a little analogous to our situation here. He was posing “undercover” as a private hunter doing business with an illegal poaching guide for game that occupied an island in the Mississippi delta country. In the dark of night, in a small boat, too far from shore to swim, the poaching guide turned to our undercover cop and said, “Are you one of those blankityblank Federal Agents?” Now, how do you suppose the Federal agent, replied? “Can we establish a fair use policy here?” No, he lied through his nose. Later, the US Attorney served notice on the poachers, the agent, in blue suit, testified in court about his experience, and the poachers went to jail.

 

These guys operate in a different world than we do. They are not naive, just hardened folk who operate on the basis of law. You don’t change their thinking by arguing fairness. It is all about law. “Kill all the lawyers.” That’s really sweet, and naive! Fairness is something you are supposed to do in parlor games and geocaching. Trouble is, some of these Federal Agents believe some geocachers are poachers.

Edited by TundraChief&SilverHare

Share this post


Link to post

Naive? Unknown? You are being very fair here.

There are millions of people in the US. There are a few thousand geocachers signed up on this and other sites. Of the millions who haven't been out geocaching we could even assume half have even _heard_ of geocaching. The most knowledgable among them will have a good idea what is going on...the rest will have simply heard the name as a trivial news story that passed them by. Of the other half of the millions, a few hundred could be the ones running the FWS.

 

In my crowd of 20+30-somethings, every time I mention "geocaching" ("i'm going out geocaching; look what i found geocaching; man, that was fun geocaching") I'm met with blank stares from the uninitiated of my hobby....the rest of them roll their eyes and wait for the explanation again...

 

It's not far-fetched (I'd even say it's very reasonable) to think that most Americans haven't heard of geocaching and that the policies quoted included the idea of removing valuable gems and elements from the NWR shows they were fairly unknowledgable about the trinkets usually inside of a geocache.

 

It's all about benefit of the doubt (something not necessarily given to us) that gives the other person some of the room they need to be willing to compromise on your situation. Go at them like 'they definitely knew they were being a jerk' and when they *do* educate themselves, they'll be sure to fit the mold you built for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Trouble is, some of these Federal Agents believe some geocachers are poachers.

LOL, thanks for the laugh, I'm going to go eat some turkey now.

Share this post


Link to post

If you let geocachers leave a box in the refuge then you have to let other groups leave items there as well or its discrimination.

Whats to stop the trash department from dumping their trash there every week? They can use the same argument that its not abandoned property because they come every week to check on it and add more trash.

 

According to the law no matter what activity is allowed on the refuge you have to take out whatever you brought in. If you make exceptions for one group then you have to make exceptions for others. Where does it end? What happens to the refuges when there are all these exceptions to the rules?

Share this post


Link to post

Blah, blah blah blah blah . . . tree huggin . . . Bunny lovers blah, blah blah.

 

OK, seriously, this is a perfect example of the Feds overstepping their boundaries. The Federals (USF&WS) have no legal jurisdiction over any state lands or areas. The US Federal Government can only have legal jurisdiction over US territories and lands (Guam, Puerto Rico). The states are seperate individual self governing bodies joined together in a Union we call the United States of America.

 

I could go on and on but this isn't the place. I only wanted to make my point that they are infringing on our right of Life, Liberty (to Geocache) and the pursuit of hapiness (Through caching).

 

DublinJeeper

Share this post


Link to post
OK, seriously, this is a perfect example of the Feds overstepping their boundaries. The Federals (USF&WS) have no legal jurisdiction over any state lands or areas. The US Federal Government can only have legal jurisdiction over US territories and lands (Guam, Puerto Rico). The states are seperate individual self governing bodies joined together in a Union we call the United States of America.

There are about a half dozen Federal Court decisions disputing your claim, including a 1999 decision from the Supreme Court that stated the Federal Government does have the legal authority over Federally owned lands that lie within the individual states.

 

If you disagree your argument is with the fed courts, not this web site.

Share this post


Link to post
If you let geocachers leave a box in the refuge then you have to let other groups leave items there as well or its discrimination.

Not if they create a permit policy and leave it up to the local land managers to make their own decisions, instead of dictating from above with blanket bans.

 

Whats to stop the trash department from dumping their trash there every week? They can use the same argument that its not abandoned property because they come every week to check on it and add more trash.

 

If they have a permit issued, then I guess it would be ok to continue dumping trash there. Of course you did say trash, so I doubt a permit would be issued in that case.

 

According to the law no matter what activity is allowed on the refuge you have to take out whatever you brought in.

 

Ultimately the cache owner retrieves the cache. Therefore they do take out whatever they brought in. Unlike the buckshot, spent shells, beer cans, fish hooks, reel line, duck decoys....

Share this post


Link to post
According to the law no matter what activity is allowed on the refuge you have to take out whatever you brought in.

 

Ultimately the cache owner retrieves the cache. Therefore they do take out whatever they brought in. Unlike the buckshot, spent shells, beer cans, fish hooks, reel line, duck decoys....

And as he said and I have said and is clear in their regulations, it would be just as wrong for anyone to leave your list (except for spent buckshot). As for leftover buckshot, in all cases I have read it must be unpoisioned and can not be fired in quite a few areas to reduce the amount of introduced lead to certain waters. IOW, the spent buckshot is not simply discarded without some concern from the FWS and they monitor the lead levels in hunting areas.

 

For you to make the statement that I have quoted is somewhat misleading and fuels the confusion that has already sprung up in the "well they let the hunters in!" comments. Leaving anything in the reserves is against regulation. Simply because someone else is doing something against regulation does not give rise to precedence or allowance for us to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Leaving anything in the reserves is against regulation. Simply because someone else is doing something against regulation does not give rise to precedence or allowance for us to do the same.

You're quoting me out of context, which makes the statement that you have quoted somewhat misleading. What I did say was that a geocacher retrieves their cache and doesn't discard it. If there was a permit (which was in context) the understanding would be that

  • The land manager is aware of the cache,
  • The owner of the cache will eventually remove it,
  • and permits were had by all.

Perhaps instead of twisting my words you could address these points. If a permit policy was in place and the local land manager (who certainly knows more about their area than a desk jockey) issued those permits, it seems like a reasonable compromise.

 

I'm the first to say that bad behavior cannot be rationalized by other bad behavior. However if you shoot projectiles at high velocity, stick hooks on lines and stick them in the water, after a while those actions cause garbage that is not retrieved, even by the most eco-friendly. If they make allowances for tramping in the woods and hunting on these lands, they should certainly make allowances for issuing permits. You are already aware of this if the parks test for lead.

Share this post


Link to post
If you let geocachers leave a box in the refuge then you have to let other groups leave items there as well or its discrimination.

Wow!

What a crock.

 

This is one of my pet peeves. "If you let one do it EEVVVERYBODY will want to do it."

 

This is just about the ultimate straw-man.

 

If you invite me into your house do you have to invite EEEVVVVERRRYbody?

 

Give people the benefit of a little discretion and common sense. Firstly, "everyone" is not banging on the door begging to get in. Secondly, even if they are, there is nothing wrong with a manager deciding which activities are good and which are not and dispensing permission accordingly.

 

That EEEVVVVERRRYBODY thing is OK for telling your two year old why he can't have a candy bar but the argument just doesn't hold water in real (adult) life.

 

And "discrimination"- don't get me started!

 

"Discrimination" is whatever the allegedly agreived party thinks it is.

 

Good Grief! Haven't we cowtowed enough to every single two-person group that claims "discrimintion"? It has always seemed funny to me that the "discriminated" group wants to fix the "discrimination" by discriminating against the discriminator- but that's not possible is it? When was the last time a "majority" group was allowed to call "foul" when a "minority" got special treatment?

 

We are in a really sad state of affairs when people are not allowed to make common sense decisions because "eeeevvvverybody" will want special treatment and claim "discrimination" if they don't get it.

 

OH Brilliant flash!

Let's file a "discrimination" suit against the Federal government. Heck, we can probably get Federal funds for the lawyers' fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's file a "discrimination" suit against the Federal government. Heck, we can probably get Federal funds for the lawyers' fees.

 

Actually, that's not a bad idea except for one small detail. Our Federal Government CAN NOT be sued unless they want to be.

 

Ah, 'tis good to be king!

 

Darwinkle

Share this post


Link to post

Do hunters and fishermen etc leave items on the refuges? Sure they do.

Does that mean they are allowed to break the law? Of course not.

If they were caught leaving items on refuges such as lures, strings, spent shells then they would be prosecuteable under the laws listed.

Are those laws enforced in all instances? Well of course not, but does that make it right to knowingly break one of the laws?

A person who wishes to protect these areas would follow the laws and take their lures, string, spent shells etc out with them.

Ultimately the cache owner retrieves the cache. Therefore they do take out whatever they brought in.

The law is if you bring it in you have to take it out, not if you bring it in, you can leave it for awhile then come back later and take it out.

If you leave an old computer or bag of trash on the side of the road, is it littering if you plan to come back and get it later? Of course it is. If it weren't then anyone who was ever fined for littering could just say in court, "Well I planned to come back for it later"

 

If you invite me into your house do you have to invite EEEVVVVERRRYbody?
No because your house is private property. Federal refuges are not private property. Therefore if you allow one group of people to do something you have to allow all people to do that as well. One might argue that they allow the sport of hunting, fishing, hiking etc. They allow these as long as the people doing them don't break any of the listed laws. If people engaging in these activities break the laws they can be prosecuted if caught. Personally I think the only law being broken by geocaching on refuges is the abandonment of property. I think the other laws were listed out of misunderstanding what geocaching is. Virtual caches wouldn't break any of the laws that I can see and would be the solution to continuing to cache on refuges without breaking any laws.

 

If you really want to change the law then challenge it in court or vote to have a bill passed to allow permits or whatever other method you see feasible to allow caches be placed in refuges. Arguing back and forth on these forums won't get the law changed. If you feel geocaching isn't breaking any of the listed laws and deserves equal consideration as an allowable activity on refuges then challenge it in court. Thats what the court systems are for, to serve as a check/balance on the legislative system.

The above info was posted by Radnax not keymaker, he was using my computer and did not change the login name :ph34r:

Edited by Keymaker

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps instead of twisting my words you could address these points. If a permit policy was in place and the local land manager (who certainly knows more about their area than a desk jockey) issued those permits, it seems like a reasonable compromise.

Jeremy, on the subject of how to best remedy this situation we are in complete agreement. My point in quoting you the way I did was not to twist your words but to show you how easily the statement without the very little context provided does not stand up well on its own and is often stated by others as a good reason to let us on the lands ("others are going against policy, we should be allowed to as well").

 

I agree that our use is just as compatible as hunting/fishing. While the Thanksgiving weekend has been a bit of an intrusion, it has been aproximately one week since Groundspeak wrote a response. Have things progressed from the contact in the government's end so that we know how to proceed in becoming a compatible use?

Share this post


Link to post

I have the same question JU66l3R has, a week has passed since we were all asked to wait before contacting the FWS. Can we please be provided with an update.

 

I have been very impressed by the tone of this thread, there has been limited amounts of name calling and flaming. I believe that inspite of the varied opinions we are all in agreement of several things:

1. No one is expecting 100% access to the lands that FSW manages as some of them are environmentally sensitive.

2. We have to approach this as, what can we do to allow Geocaching. Not you allow all of these other things, what about us.

3. There are many state and local agencies throughout the United States that have effective Geocaching policies utilizing free permits. Any number of which could be used to create a policy for the FWS

4. Unlike most sports if an area with a Geocache shows wear, all we have to is move the cache.

5. The concept of CITO makes us unique from most land users.

 

The time is approaching where if we are not seeing signs of a mutal agreement that we need to make our voices heard. We have several examples of in this thread of groups who have sucessfully done this. But this needs to be done in an organized and targeted manner. Perhaps some of the people at FSW who may not agree with the current Geocaching policy will be more likely to help if they can show some statistics. To borrow a "Bushism" it time for some shock and awe.

Share this post


Link to post
While the Thanksgiving weekend has been a bit of an intrusion, it has been aproximately one week since Groundspeak wrote a response. Have things progressed from the contact in the government's end so that we know how to proceed in becoming a compatible use?

There is no panel in some government building in Virginia currently in deep discussions over geocaching. It's a law enforcement official acting in the capacity of the NWS, who is on Thanksgiving break. I will leave it to Hydee (who is also on Thanksgiving break) to return and handle the situation. That's all I know at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
The law is if you bring it in you have to take it out, not if you bring it in, you can leave it for awhile then come back later and take it out.

:ph34r:

 

A simple question. Do you believe that local land managers should have the ability to make permit decisions, or do you believe that a bureucrat 2,000 miles away should make blanket decisions like the one that started this thread?

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Jeremy, every situation that I have been involved with or read about regarding Geocaching to be allowed on land managed by a specific agency. We have always had better results when working with the local land manager, as opposed to a bearuecrat at the main office. Most land managers seem to welcome geocaching as one more way to get people to visit their parks and they have often helped find ideal cache locations that only they know about.

 

We'll have to wait for Hydee to ge back. What bothers me about this is, it is sounding more like a single person, or verysmal grouo, made the decision without consulting with anyone. Especially the local land managers. In addtion to e-mailing the appropariate contact at FWS, we may also have to think about writing letters to local FWS land managers and enlisting their support.

Edited by magellan315

Share this post


Link to post

I have been in contact with the assistant manager (the manager is on vacation) of the KOFA WMR in SW AZ. She states that, "although there had been some discussion at the last regional conference she attended ealrlier in Nov '03, regarding Geocaching. The info she had was that it was to be left up to the managers of each WMR whether or not to allow Geocaching at this time" She also stated that her supervisor (the WMR mamnger) instructed her to go and locate some caches to look for damage, she found none (Way to go AZ geocachers!! She also said she took her children along and they enjoyed it so much, that she was thinking of joining.

Topics we discussed were........

If a hunter loses an arrow, or the bullet misses it's mark...would they too be charged with a federal crime?

How about the discarded casings from high powered rifles?

As this notice from FWS came at a peak hunting season use time, I think that a hunter may have complianed about all the "non-game" mammals in their sites ruining their "sport". Nothing against hunters or hunting as I am one myself, but I believe Roosevelt set the WMR's aside for use by "ALL AMERICANS"....someone correct me if my info on that quote is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
A simple question. Do you believe that local land managers should have the ability to make permit decisions, or do you believe that a bureucrat 2,000 miles away should make blanket decisions like the one that started this thread?

 

I see nothing wrong with someone 2000 miles away setting policy on Federal land since Federal land is not paid thru local funds. Afterall isn't Congress located in DC? They don't make our laws locally, they go to DC to meet and make laws there.

WMRs are federal land and therefore not subject to local laws. Allowing local managers to set policy for federal lands would be a very bad idea IMO. Imagine the corruption that could breed when some local manager decides to issue permits to a corporation that is lining his pockets. That of course maybe a bit extreme but hopefully you get the idea of what problems could arise when local managers are allowed to set policies that go against the laws. All of our federal laws are made in Washington D.C. as far as I know. States don't make federal laws just because they are local, so why should local managers of Federal land be able to set/change these laws?

Local managers set hunting/fishing season based on the local seasons but they still follow the federal regulations set in place by the federal laws.

We should either abide by the laws of the WMR or work to change them thru the proper channels.

This is no different than the National Park Service and caches are being prohibited for almost the same reason "The National Park regulations are intended to protect the fragile environment, and historical and cultural areas found in the parks." as stated in the rules found at http://www.geocaching.com/articles/making.asp

The managers of the federal land aren't there to set policy or make laws. They are there to see that the laws are enforced and the land is managed properly so that future generations can enjoy it. If you want to change federal laws/policies then you need to go to the ones that set those laws/policies. Just like law enforcement doesn't make the laws, they only enforce them. All I see that they are doing by that letter is letting Geocachers know they will be enforcing the laws and if you place a cache in a WMR you are violating those laws.

 

If a hunter loses an arrow, or the bullet misses it's mark...would they too be charged with a federal crime?

How about the discarded casings from high powered rifles?

.... but I believe Roosevelt set the WMR's aside for use by "ALL AMERICANS"....someone correct me if my info on that quote is wrong.

 

Yes technically if a hunter loses an arrow or the bullet misses and it can be proven that hunter left said arrow/bullet behind then they could be prosecuted under the law.

 

All Americans are free to use the WMRs provided they adhere to the rules and regulations of the WMR.

 

O and Keymakers' posts above are actually me. I didn't realize it was logging me into the forums as him even though I was logged into GC.com as me. Sorry for any confusion.

Edited by Radnax

Share this post


Link to post

I have not made any comments on this topic, the post were made by Radnax who was using my computer and did not change the login. This made it appear that I was the one who made the post.

 

Keymaker

Share this post


Link to post
Allowing local managers to set policy for federal lands would be a very bad idea IMO. Imagine the corruption that could breed when some local manager decides to issue permits to a corporation that is lining his pockets. That of course maybe a bit extreme but hopefully you get the idea of what problems could arise when local managers are allowed to set policies that go against the laws. All of our federal laws are made in Washington D.C. as far as I know. States don't make federal laws just because they are local, so why should local managers of Federal land be able to set/change these laws?

 

Local managers set hunting/fishing season based on the local seasons but they still follow the federal regulations set in place by the federal laws.

 

Your second point is the point. We're not talking about strip mining, but a tupperware container! Certainly, like fishing and hunting, there can be general rules from Washington but descretionary implementation left up to the local land manager. I believe that's what Jeremy was talking about.

Share this post


Link to post

To comply with this new action, I had to pull one of my caches, which has been active at it's location a great while, and without any impact to the environment. I hope the virtual I put in its place will not have to last long. :)

Share this post


Link to post

In my crowd of 20+30-somethings, every time I mention "geocaching" ("i'm going out geocaching; look what i found geocaching; man, that was fun geocaching") I'm met with blank stares from the uninitiated of my hobby....the rest of them roll their eyes and wait for the explanation again...

 

From experience in the BBS to Internet switchover, general knowledge of our geo-sport has 10 years to reach the general public from the technically inclined. There are a good 5 to 7 years to go. ( By that time maybe the folks imprisoned for fws caches will be let go. :) )

 

The answer is education and voting, education and voting... and perhaps a purchased congressman. :)

 

A letter writing campain? No. I think everybody needs to adopt a FWS public employee and take them on a good few hunts. Marry them into the sport. Its the best way because it's a proven tactic.

 

Everglades

Edited by Everglades

Share this post


Link to post

If you invite me into your house do you have to invite EEEVVVVERRRYbody?

 

No because your house is private property. Federal refuges are not private property. Therefore if you allow one group of people to do something you have to allow all people to do that as well.

 

Obviously they don't, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes technically if a hunter loses an arrow or the bullet misses and it can be proven that hunter left said arrow/bullet behind then they could be prosecuted under the law.

 

That makes it a pretty LOUSY law!

 

Would I get prosecuted for leaving oh, say, a quart or so of "new water" on the trail?

 

The law is intended to cover littering and dumping. To use such a law to fill the Federal prison system with people who lose their golf balls or "leave" things that are by their very nature "left" is a travesty and is well outside any reasonable reading or the intent of the law.

 

So if you hunt on Federal land, be sure to pick up your bullets. Oh, and probably you should pick up the deer's blood too- we wouldn't want the deer to have to go to prison before you eat him.

 

It is silly interpretations of the law like this that makes it, in fact, impossible to get out of bed without breaking SOME silly law.

 

I don't see anyone here advocating breaking the law. But I do see many disagreeing with its interpretation as it "applies" to geocaching.

 

A court test is the only real way to resolve this. If we get the law changed, there are still some who would reinterpret the NEW law unfavourably.

 

Besides, the courts are in a habit of redesigning our culture to suit themselves anyway and the legislature is powerless to stop them.

Edited by ChurchCampDave

Share this post


Link to post
The law is intended to cover littering and dumping. To use such a law to fill the Federal prison system with people who lose their golf balls or "leave" things that are by their very nature "left" is a travesty and is well outside any reasonable reading or the intent of the law.

The NWR rule is to protect the environment inside of the refuge.

 

If your activity on the NWR can not be accomplished without leaving things behind that aren't acceptable to the FWS, then you are in violation of that rule. That means if you want to swing at golfballs like it's a driving range and you aren't going to be able to find all of them when you're done, you're in violation (my guess is the local managers aren't too thrilled about the NWRs being used as driving ranges anyways). If you are going to geocache and leave the container when you leave the NWR, you're in violation. If you are hunting, you do not need to retrieve every buckshot (if you're hunting with bullets, you're already in violation) because non-toxic buckshot is not in violation of the abandoned property rule as stated in the hunting exceptions.

 

Geocaches could hold the same exception as buckshot (permitted to be left behind) but not if everyone goes around yelling about "my public land" and "darn hunters allowed" and so on. Wait, we'll get a contact, we'll work *with* them not *against* them and we'll eventually get NWRs reopened to geocaching in due time.

Share this post


Link to post

I would certainly agree that geocaching in sensitive NWR areas is probably not a good idea, but I would hate for a precedent to be set for all Federal lands to have a harsh view of geocaching due to a lack of understanding or self-imposed ignorance. This is almost as bad as the geocaching on Federal lands discussion I commented on which is found here. Anyway, the Federal land management folks need to understand the value of geocaching and that it is of benefit to them (permitted, open, or whatever they decide) to allow it to occur as long as guidelines are adhered to. I can see where those Federal statutes can be interpreted and generate arguments for both sides, but I think the real issue here is education of the Federal land managers in the US Dept of Interior.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post

Hydee, Phone Home.

 

Hydee if you have any information regarding what is going on wioth this situation I'm sure it would be appreciated. Including whom do we e-mail.

Share this post


Link to post

huh? who me???? :D

 

We have not heard back from the enforcement officer that emailed us. I have contacted another official from a NWR to see if he has a suggestion as to the right person/department to contact. I will let you know when I have more information.

Share this post


Link to post

    16USC668dd 50CFR 27.63 Search for and removal of other valued objects - Sec. 27.63  Search for and removal of other valued objects.

    (a) No person shall search for buried treasure, treasure trove, valuable semi-precious rocks, stones, or mineral specimens on national wildlife refuges unless authorized by permit or by provision of this subchapter C.

   

Ok, I think the Fishy Wildlife guys are kinda pushing this one.....to me, this regulation sounds as though you can't perform a "treasure salvage" operation, meaning you can't go prospecting for gold, silver, lead, etc., or looking for the wreckage of Amelia Earhardt's plane. I don't think when this was written, it was actually intended to refer to finding something someone else has intentionally left there to be found, although the first rule does seem to cover that. We have a local State Park that has a "part time" wildlife refuge. During the winter months, the area is "Closed to All Activities" for the Canadian Geese that migrate there. During the summer season, anyone can go there, so I guess you can only hide-and-seek a cache there during the summer season, and as long as it's removed before the winter season.

 

By the way, I also liked your closing to the email of "Happy Geocaching"....nice touch, very non-confrontational in a slap-in-the-face kind of way!

 

Sparky

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

×
×
  • Create New...