On Permission And Pantywastes

[ju66l3r]

You haven’t and won’t convince me to become a namby-pamby worrying pantywaste. I don’t need permission to do that which is right and legal, nor do I need to inform anyone that I intend to do so.

Well, here is a new question for you then:

 

I would like some clarification from you. You don't need permission to do that which is right and legal. Agreed. But, if a current rule for a public park *could* be construed to prohibit geocaching by the land manager enforcing said rule, does that make geocaching right and legal (emphasis on the "legal")?

 

In other words, in the cases where a rule exists that does not *explicitly* state geocaching prohibition (i.e., cases unlike NWR and NFS), does that automatically make it legal or do you accept that another broader rule may include geocaching and could be implemented to prohibit it? In those same cases, would you charge ahead, dadgum the consequences, or check with the land manager first?

 

As I stated in my last post, I am not interested in discussing public areas where there are no rules whatsoever that could be applied to geocaching. It would be entirely unnecessary to consult with anyone on the ability to geocache there as there is no possible restriction against it. But as you are sure to justify your statements with "right and legal", I think what is in discussion is what is considered "legal" and whether deference to being more cautious in these more nebulous cases (which I'd guess is the extensive majority of non-federal lands) is more responsible geocaching and better promotion of the sport for its future.

[+Criminal]

Just as some think this is "my land" and I can do what I want, remember that someone else will think that it is "their land" as well and don't want you doing it. Which usually results in rules and so forth being made. Each side has their own right, right?

 

Your argument is valid to a point. However, I’ve never made the claim that “this is my land (by virtue of taxes or whatever) and I’ll do as I please.” I’ve said all along, where permission is required, get it. Where we part on this is that I equate geocaching with any other park activity. That’s where your statement above, though a good one, does not apply.

 

It would be one thing if no one had a problem with it. But the fact is that there has been some negativity towards it.

 

I have a real problem with this statement. It would seem, in effect, to force us all to operate at the level of the lowest person. Sort of like the schools dumbing down the curriculum because little Johnny can’t keep up. While it may be no fault of his own, the rest of the students will have mediocrity thrust upon them to prevent his self esteem from suffering. I will not change my behaviors simply to appease the simpleminded, be it a LM or another geocacher.

 

Just like when I went to work for the state of Georgia at a women’s prison.

 

Oh man that rocks! Is it really like in the women’s prison movies? Do you get to hand out towels in the shower room?

 

The basis of the story is that common sense does not always work. The idiots make it bad on the rest of us.

 

Uh………what were we talking about? Oh yeah, that is true, but only to the degree you allow it to happen.

 

Just like those who do abandon caches and let them become litter, rot and damage it's surroundings.

 

Again, this is by far the exception rather than the rule. Sure a very small percentage of caches are left abandoned to rot. (What’s the half life of an ammo can?) But the woods behind the ball field are chock full of old baseballs rotting under the leaves, who cares? Did anybody die because of it?

 

That's why my opinion is that I would rather have a relationship with the person managing the land.

 

In the NW forum it was mentioned by an attorney that from a liability viewpoint, the LM is better off not knowing.

 

I will thank you though, for at least offering up a reasonable argument.

[+woodsters]

Unfortunately it only takes a few bad apples to ruin hte bunch. We've all heard that stat statement before. It's true. Just as in the news. How often do they show the good versus the bad? The negativity always gets ahead. Your right, we shouldn't be succumbed to that of the lowest. But when we are not making the decisions, we have to live them.

 

As about the prison, um well I will never tell.

[+woodsters]

One last thing also. I know as both a law enforcement officer and a correctional officer (both state and federal), that I appreciated it when someone advised me that they were going to do something or be somewhere in advance. Even when they asked, I was more apt to say ok. But if they went and did it anyway, I considered it a slap in the face and didn't handle it as nicely. Of course those were on things that had rules. But my feeling is that I feel that it's respect. I hope that when I give others respect, that I will get it as well. Sometimes it doesn't work that way, many times it does.

[+bthomas]

This is one of the best topic threads to appear in quite a while. It certainly has grown since I read it on the first day, and I must be forgiven for not looking at each thing covered. Mea culpa, if I'm redundant.

 

Geocaching is about hiding things, and about people with coordinates finding those things-- only people with the coords. Geocaching is by nature, a secretive activity. Geocaching is not an organized activity.

 

Organization leads to standing and to infrastructure improvements. Bicyclists of the 1890's successfully lobbied for spending on paved roads to replace mud; 100 years later they lobbied for an extra lane on the new causeway. In some of our parks, today, there's a group of people that throw plastic around the place and tramp up hillsides, but they have standing thanks to their Disc Golf Association. Our brethren the Orienteers run on trail and off trail with permission, because they have organization and liability coverage, terms that land managers understand.

 

If geocaching were an organized activity, there would be a chartered organizing body with rules bearing the power of law and/or sanction. There'd be a U.S. Geocaching Assn and a World Federation of Geocaching. There would be lobbying and advocacy, whenever the Association's interest was put into question. There would be a conduct of progress in furthering the legitimacy of the activity. Sure there's a GC.com, but it's just a listing service with TPTB and some posting rules. Heck, there isn't even a leaderboard. I don't believe any resources go towards either liability or advocacy.

 

A consequence, geocaching is not in the legal lexicon of most municipalities or federal jurisdictions, and there is little standing in a due process. Geocaching is placed at the mercy of a bureaucratic process. As Criminal and others have noted, bureaucracies tend to have an institutional behavior of avoid-action, duck and cover.

 

And that's what we should do: duck and cover. Go hide something for others to find. For those people not in on the secret, don't ask, don't tell. Me, I'm just hiding a diary out there. It's not litter.

[+Criminal]

You haven’t and won’t convince me to become a namby-pamby worrying pantywaste.  I don’t need permission to do that which is right and legal, nor do I need to inform anyone that I intend to do so.

Well, here is a new question for you then:

 

I would like some clarification from you. You don't need permission to do that which is right and legal. Agreed. But, if a current rule for a public park *could* be construed to prohibit geocaching by the land manager enforcing said rule, does that make geocaching right and legal (emphasis on the "legal")?

 

In other words, in the cases where a rule exists that does not *explicitly* state geocaching prohibition (i.e., cases unlike NWR and NFS), does that automatically make it legal or do you accept that another broader rule may include geocaching and could be implemented to prohibit it? In those same cases, would you charge ahead, dadgum the consequences, or check with the land manager first?

 

As I stated in my last post, I am not interested in discussing public areas where there are no rules whatsoever that could be applied to geocaching. It would be entirely unnecessary to consult with anyone on the ability to geocache there as there is no possible restriction against it. But as you are sure to justify your statements with "right and legal", I think what is in discussion is what is considered "legal" and whether deference to being more cautious in these more nebulous cases (which I'd guess is the extensive majority of non-federal lands) is more responsible geocaching and better promotion of the sport for its future.

Ooops, sorry, I wasn’t ignoring you, I just missed the post.

 

Interpretation is a tricky concept. We called it “what-iffing the airplane into the ground” when I was flying Starlifters. It means that given enough time and what-ifs, you could always find a reason to stay on the ground. If the park has rules, posted or otherwise, that specify geocaching as a banned activity, then I would get permission or go somewhere else. The lack of a specific rule means that (to me anyway) an activity is allowed.

 

In my previous baseball analogy, the LM would have to require little league teams account for every baseball after the game to ensure they are not littering. Seems kind of stupid, right? What’s the difference if instead of a baseball that will never be checked on or removed, I hide a small container?

 

In those same cases, would you charge ahead, dadgum the consequences, or check with the land manager first?

 

That paints an extreme image. There are no consequences to dadgum; do you punish your children for every thing they do that is new to them? Are they required to check with you before they ride on the right side of the school bus for the first time? I don’t feel an obligation to inform the LM for geocaching any more than for a picnic.

 

…whether deference to being more cautious in these more nebulous cases…

 

I’ve logged over 5600 accident free flying hours during my 20, I know caution. I do not, however, take it to such an extreme that my way of life will suffer for it. If I did, my hairline would not be in the same place it was in high school, and I’d never get in my car and drive over the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

 

EDIT: Clarity

Edited December 2, 2003 by Criminal

[+The Leprechauns]

Criminal in his wisdom observed:

In my previous baseball analogy, the LM would have to require little league teams account for every baseball after the game to ensure they are not littering. Seems kind of stupid, right? What’s the difference if instead of a baseball that will never be checked on or removed, I hide a small container?

All I know is, when I was geocaching in your neck of the woods, right next to a Boeing factory, I went to a cache hidden in a gully next to the first base line of a kid's softball field, and I found six softballs in plain sight before I found the well-hidden camoflauged geocache. I did some CISO (cache-in, softballs-out) and deposited all of the balls near the entrance to the field, for kids to pick up and use again.

 

So don't you dare say that the baseball will never be checked on or removed. A geocacher will eventually find it.

 

And when I dropped off the softballs, was I littering?

 

I have such a headache now from reading this.

[+Team Lawrence]

Try as I may, I can't find a legal definition of litter.

Being a Virginia boy, I know more about their laws than those of other localities. In Virginia, it is fairly narrowly defined as "all waste material disposable packages or containers but not including the wastes of the primary processes of mining, logging, sawmilling, farming, or manufacturing" under § 10.1-1414 of the Code of Virginia. Geocaches would appear to escape that definition, although I know of no case law on point.

 

Your state will have different laws, I am sure.

[+DustyJacket]

After waiting for nearly a month on KC parks, and 3 weeks for Jackson County Parks, I am about ready to join that underground caching group, darn it.

 

Jackson County allows caches with approval, but they are ignoring me lately.

My Night Cache has been in the works for 3 weeks.

 

KC Parks has said we can "move forward" but they no longer respond to my calls, and my E-mails are now rejected. Hmmmm..... I wonder where this is going?

 

I used to be all for getting permission, but now I wonder............

[+woodsters]

Hey no response is a yes, right?

[+Bull Moose]

If they don't like being called flunkies, they should not act like it. I have met some PArk Rangers with Ph.D.s I would qualify as flunkies because they have no sense of humor, imagination, and no sense of the spirit of the very parks they are supposedly managing.

 

One thing I always liked and Criminal didn't bring up is his "frisbee rule" which is something like: "If I don't have to ask permission to play frisbee in a place, I don't have to ask permission to place a cache there."

 

That keeps you off private and sensitive land and you have to deal with less flunkies.

[+The Leprechauns]

Those of you desiring to know the definition of "litter" in your own jurisdiction can overdose by Browsing This Website. Enjoy, but leave no trace.

[+nincehelser]

So we’ve come full circle, right back to the beginning. There are two types of people; the first believes they need permission from someone before doing something. The other believes they can do anything not prohibited by law or common sense.

 

This fudging topic has pretty much run its course and we’re not hearing anything new. You haven’t and won’t convince me to become a namby-pamby worrying pantywaste. I don’t need permission to do that which is right and legal, nor do I need to inform anyone that I intend to do so.

 

Check your own finds, do they all specify on the cache page that they were hidden with permission? If not, you (by your logic) should have sought permission before finding them, just to be safe.

 

Duh

 

EDIT: All "you" are general yous, no one in particular.

There are two kind of people. Those who can defend their original argument and those who can't.

 

Now you're claiming FINDERS have to get permission, or they're hypocrites? How incredibly lame! That was never issue debated here.

 

I'll tell you one thing. From now on I will not search for any cache placed by "criminal", because it was likely placed without honoring the stated rules of geocaching. Oh, yeah. Like that's going to make a big difference...but at least I'll sleep at night knowning I'm not a hypocrite.

 

George

[+Team Lawrence]

I generally agree with Criminal's point of view here and I've never asked anyone for permission on my few caches, because I believe that it should be regarded as presumptively permitted unless explicitly regulated in some way. I generally agree with my hero, Grace Hopper, when she says that it is easier to ask forgiveness than get permission.

 

However, after thinking about this for a few days since I first read this post, I have come to doubt my position is the wisest one for the good of the sport. I still think it is perfectly legal and justified to hide caches without permission unless it is demanded, but I think it may tend to result in negative consequences overall.

 

It seems that in many parks or federal lands or other community property, the subject of geocaching must eventually be addressed by the appropriate land managers. In the case where no one seeks permission, it may be that the person who addresses the subject is the wrong person. A recent example would be the NWR fiasco where the law enforcement group is enforcing a ban. It may be that a solution can be negotiated or it may be that geocaching will be banned permanently there. The action was taken in a forum not selected by geocachers and the decision could be made without any input by cachers. The NPS decision was much the same story -- the decision was made without any input from geocachers or Groundspeak and left everyone with the much more difficult position of negotiating a reversal of an established position.

 

If the general approach was to seek permission where practical, the forum for seeking approval would be selected by cachers and the decision would be made with input from cachers. Ideally, there would be a coordinated approach either directed by or coordinated with Groundspeak. They could at the least prepare presentation materials to ensure a consistent pitch that put our best foot forward. It might be that more parks and venues would be lost to us as forcing these decisions would result in some adverse results, but there is no assurance that those same parks might not eventually make the same ruling anyhow.

[+briansnat]

I haven't weighed in on this topic, because there wasn't much to add to Criminal's original post. It was on the money. Just an observation though ... After reading the responses, I bet I have an idea of which political party each respondent belongs to (with the exception of Seneca, who every time I think I have him pegged, he throws a curve ball).

Edited December 2, 2003 by briansnat

[+Criminal]

Now you're claiming FINDERS have to get permission, or they're hypocrites? How incredibly lame! That was never issue debated here.

 

Uh, you do know how to read, right? I said:

Check your own finds, do they all specify on the cache page that they were hidden with permission? If not, you (by your logic) should have sought permission before finding them, just to be safe.

(Bolding added for emphasis.

 

You see, that’s called hyperbole. Look it up. Then sit back and say “DUH”

[+nincehelser]

Again, this is by far the exception rather than the rule. Sure a very small percentage of caches are left abandoned to rot. (What’s the half life of an ammo can?) But the woods behind the ball field are chock full of old baseballs rotting under the leaves, who cares? Did anybody die because of it?

So, if a group of people going out to clean up the park see a bunch of baseballs lying around, they're just going to ignore them?

 

My guess is that they are either going to throw them in the trash or give them to some kids to play with. I seriously doubt they would think "leave the balls there...the game might still be going on".

 

George

[+nincehelser]

You see, that’s called hyperbole. Look it up. Then sit back and say “DUH”

 

Right....and you still believe I'm really serious about snow tires?

 

Ho hum...

 

George

[+nincehelser]

I haven't weighed in on this topic, because there wasn't much to add to Criminal's original post. It was on the money. Just an observation though ... After reading the responses, I bet I have an idea of which political party each respondent belongs to (with the exception of Seneca, who every time I think I have him pegged, he throws a curve ball).

So you think I'm a conservative Republican? Darn, you're good!

 

George

[+Criminal]

You see, that’s called hyperbole.  Look it up.  Then sit back and say “DUH”

 

Right....and you still believe I'm really serious about snow tires?

 

Ho hum...

 

George

My reply was on topic and relevant. I’ve seen your sort of argument before, try to sidetrack the discussion with slightly off topic gibberish in an attempt to derail the conversation. It’s done to divert attention away from the fact that you have nothing to add to the debate. If you want to discuss the millions of ways that something could be interpreted to mean what you want it to mean, start your own thread. You’re much like a pesky gnat, buzzing around trying to irritate while contributing nothing intelligent.

[+nincehelser]

You see, that’s called hyperbole.  Look it up.  Then sit back and say “DUH”

 

Right....and you still believe I'm really serious about snow tires?

 

Ho hum...

 

George

My reply was on topic and relevant. I’ve seen your sort of argument before, try to sidetrack the discussion with slightly off topic gibberish in an attempt to derail the conversation. It’s done to divert attention away from the fact that you have nothing to add to the debate. If you want to discuss the millions of ways that something could be interpreted to mean what you want it to mean, start your own thread. You’re much like a pesky gnat, buzzing around trying to irritate while contributing nothing intelligent.

Whoooo!

 

(intial reply self-edited out, stay tuned...okay, got my sense back now)

 

I understand. Logic can be very irritating and pesky, and it does kind of make your brain buzz sometimes.

 

As I've said before, your ad hominem attacks just proves the weakness of your original thesis. It just doesn't stand up well in the bright light of day.

 

I think everything's been pretty well hashed out and beaten to death, so I will "shut the hell up", unless someone comes up with something else that makes interesting discussion.

 

George

Edited December 2, 2003 by nincehelser

[ju66l3r]

After reading the responses, I bet I have an idea of which political party each respondent belongs to (with the exception of Seneca, who every time I think I have him pegged, he throws a curve ball).

A little OT, but just out of idle curiosity, I was wondering what political party you think I (and those that would prefer permission be gained in cases where geocaching is not specifically prohibited or allowed) subscribe to?

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

PS - The correct answer is Democrat.

[+geospotter]

I haven't weighed in on this topic, because there wasn't much to add to Criminal's original post. It was on the money. Just an observation though ... After reading the responses, I bet I have an idea of which political party each respondent belongs to (with the exception of Seneca, who every time I think I have him pegged, he throws a curve ball).

What would you think for me?

 

Someone once said (and I'm paraphrasing),"If you're not a liberal when you're 25 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 45 you have no brain."

 

I hit 45 a few years ago.

[+nincehelser]

Someone once said (and I'm paraphrasing),"If you're not a liberal when you're 25 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 45 you have no brain."

So much for me shutting up...

 

I haven't been to the polls in a while because I'm still trying to figure out if voting a straight ticket is PC or not.

 

George

[+Bloencustoms]

I would love to discuss politics, but that's a topic for a different forum.

 

In other words, in the cases where a rule exists that does not *explicitly* state geocaching prohibition (i.e., cases unlike NWR and NFS), does that automatically make it legal or do you accept that another broader rule may include geocaching and could be implemented to prohibit it? In those same cases, would you charge ahead, dadgum the consequences, or check with the land manager first?

 

This is why we have been picking the definition of litter and abandoned property to bits. As I said before, if a geocache isn't litter and it isn't abandoned, then it is a geocache, and those rules aren't applicable. Just because some people let their caches turn to crap, the definiton of "geocache" doesn't change.

 

Unless you are prepared to agree that a geocaching permit would allow you to dump trash in parks, you must admit that rules banning dumping, littering and abandoning property don't apply to caches.

 

The logic can be applied both ways. If a cache can be trash or litter, then trash or litter can be a cache.

 

None of us would think of intentionally fouling our parks with litter. But we all (almost) place geocaches in them.

[+geospotter]

I read one definition, some time ago, that included "the depositing of a container". It sounded a lot like a geocache. I guess we then have to define "depositing" and "container" (and maybe even "define").

 

I'll try to find it again.

[+Bloencustoms]

So a caching permit would alow you to deposit containers in that park. A cache has to be more than just deposited. It needs a log, a writing instument, and it's coordinates must be recorded. You're grasping at straws. When you have enough to make a basket, we can go hide a cache in it somewhere.

[ju66l3r]

This is why we have been picking the definition of litter and abandoned property to bits. As I said before, if a geocache isn't litter and it isn't abandoned, then it is a geocache, and those rules aren't applicable.

Abandoned property and geocache as terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

As you can see by reading the FWS rules, they have defined "Abandoned Property" to including leaving pretty much any personal property in the park. Now, they have a reason (wildlife environment preservation) to be so broad about what default behavior for a non-permit visitor is allowable. Of course, we can still see an easy exception being made to that rule/definition because of the usefulness of CITO, etc. that have been discussed in the FWR thread. The geocache permit would state that we are exempt from the AProp rule in cases where we have certified a specific location with the land manager and the cache conforms to permit rules XYZ (clear container or locked box or whatever).

 

Just because you or I don't consider it "abandoned" because of it being owned, etc, it is easily forseeable that someone else would apply a rule similar to the FWR rule to a found geocache....especially someone who knows very little about geocaching. This has been shown to be true in any of the "my cache was found by a ranger" posts that include bits like "he just threw it away...." or "i got a note that said i was in violation and they took my stuff but left the box...".

 

So, true to my point, there *are* rules that can include geocaches as an illegal act (see the FWR fiasco). They *have* been quoted in response to found geocaches (see any "upset ranger found my cache" posts). My conclusion is:

 

Instead of acting like they don't apply and hoping that they're not applied, we should probably be making sure they won't be applied and requesting exemption if they would be applied. If this makes me a pantywaist, so be it...but I see greater potential harm to the hobby from the former and an unnecessarily higher level of risk at being caught/scolded/denied access than if I am more up-front with those that would do the scolding/denying/etc.

 

Not sure there's much more to say.

[+Mark 42]

I want to get my $0.02 in before this thread gets closed...

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=litter

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abandoned

 

Did you check if Frisbee throwing is legal the last time you were

in a public park, and so inclined?

 

If it doesn't say that you can play soccer in a park, would

you really go find an authority figure to ask?

 

Did you obtain a hunting license the last time you swatted a mosquito?

 

Public land belongs to the public.

That's me.

I hereby grant permission to anyone who wants to place a cache on my public land.

 

I'm so sick of having to ask the government every time I feel flatulence coming on.

 

For gawd's sake, you can't even cut your grass without a permit these days.

 

I can't even buy a new car w/o airbags because of all the jerks

that think they should protect me from every type of risk in

existence.

Edited December 3, 2003 by Mark 42

[+nincehelser]

None of us would think of intentionally fouling our parks with litter. But we all (almost) place geocaches in them.

This reminds me of my college days.... (Kansas State)

 

Outside the old stadium, there was a display of "modern art". These were basically towers 6 or 7 feet high, made of what must of been rusty scrap metal. There were 6 or 7 of them, and they were "planted" in a long row about 10 or so feet from each other.

 

I passed this "art" daily on my way to classes. I didn't think much of it.

 

Apparently someone else didn't, either. They secretly added a new tower to the row, which consisted of a car's rusty exhaust pipe, topped by a muffler. It blended in perfectly. This could have been the most clever geocaching container I've ever seen, and it stayed in place for quite a while before someone "official" realized it didn't belong.

 

It's all in perception. What you might call art (or geocache), others might call trash. What it is often comes down to is what gets officially sanctioned.

 

George

Edited December 3, 2003 by nincehelser

[+Mark 42]

Let me add...

 

http://www.arlo.net/lyrics/alices.shtml

[+leatherman]

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 45 you have no brain."

That's great. I've always referred to Liberals as "Over emotional Mush Bellies".

 

I started work in a prison at 21. Apathy pushed me to 45 pretty quick. I firmly believe that no law of any kind should have any emotional tie.

 

I can't believe the embarrassing emotional drivel that is referred to as logic. Any statement that ends with "it's the right thing to do" is a bad idea.

[+nincehelser]

Public land belongs to the public.

That's me.

I hereby grant permission to anyone who wants to place a cache on my public land.

So, you're like, 6 billion people? It must be crowded in there.

 

If you really want to know what your true ownership rights are for public land, divide 1 by the population of whatever region seems appropriate.

 

No matter how you slice it, it's going to be a pretty small number, because there are so many of us.

 

George

[ju66l3r]

A more important definition is the *legal* one, not the dictionary one. Legal definitions are notoriously not in perfect alignment with the dictionary (why Law School is so hard):

 

From NC State Law on Littering:

 

(a)No person, including any firm, organization, private

corporation, or governing body, agents or employees of any

municipal corporation shall intentionally or recklessly throw,

scatter, spill or place or intentionally or recklessly cause to

be blown, scattered, spilled, thrown or placed or otherwise

dispose of any litter upon any public property or private

property not owned by the person within this State or in the

waters of this State including any public highway, public park,

lake, river, ocean, beach, campground, forestland, recreational

area, trailer park, highway, road, street or alley except:

(1) When the property is designated by the State or

political subdivision thereof for the disposal of

garbage and refuse, and the person is authorized to

use the property for this purpose; or

(2) Into a litter receptacle in a manner that the

litter will be prevented from being carried away or

deposited by the elements upon any part of the

private or public property or waters.

[....]

"Litter" means any garbage, rubbish, trash, refuse,

can, bottle, box, container, wrapper, paper, paper

product, tire, appliance, mechanical equipment or

part, building or construction material, tool,

machinery, wood, motor vehicle or motor vehicle

part, vessel, aircraft, farm machinery or

equipment, sludge from a waste treatment facility,

water supply treatment plant, or air pollution

control facility, dead animal, or discarded

material in any form resulting from domestic,

industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, or

governmental operations. While being used for or

distributed in accordance with their intended uses,

"litter" does not include political pamphlets,

handbills, religious tracts, newspapers, and other

similar printed materials the unsolicited

distribution of which is protected by the

Constitution of the United States or the

Constitution of North Carolina.

 

 

This is just one example of how a broad legal definition of littering can cover a geocache.

[+Bloencustoms]

I'm trying to understand why geocachers are willing to accept the opinion that non-cachers seem to have that a cache is trash. If you are so ready to "see their point of view" you're a lot closer to meekly accepting a ruling that a cache is indeed trash.

 

"One man's trash is another man's treasure."

 

I'll say it for you. I've heard it before, we all have.

 

Does that mean that a geocache is something different depending upon which park it winds up in? If I place a baseball on the ground anywhere, it is still a baseball. I don't care if I do it in a national park, in my own yard, or at the North pole, it is still a baseball.

 

Are any of you ready to add the line "some may consider them to be trash" to the definition of the word geocache?

[+Bloencustoms]

A more important definition is the *legal* one, not the dictionary one. Legal definitions are notoriously not in perfect alignment with the dictionary (why Law School is so hard):

 

From NC State Law on Littering:

 

(a)No person, including any firm, organization, private

corporation, or governing body, agents or employees of any

municipal corporation shall intentionally or recklessly throw,

scatter, spill or place or intentionally or recklessly cause to

be blown, scattered, spilled, thrown or placed or otherwise

dispose of any litter upon any public property or private

property not owned by the person within this State or in the

waters of this State including any public highway, public park,

lake, river, ocean, beach, campground, forestland, recreational

area, trailer park, highway, road, street or alley except:

(1) When the property is designated by the State or

political subdivision thereof for the disposal of

garbage and refuse, and the person is authorized to

use the property for this purpose; or

(2) Into a litter receptacle in a manner that the

litter will be prevented from being carried away or

deposited by the elements upon any part of the

private or public property or waters.

[....]

"Litter" means any garbage, rubbish, trash, refuse,

can, bottle, box, container, wrapper, paper, paper

product, tire, appliance, mechanical equipment or

part, building or construction material, tool,

machinery, wood, motor vehicle or motor vehicle

part, vessel, aircraft, farm machinery or

equipment, sludge from a waste treatment facility,

water supply treatment plant, or air pollution

control facility, dead animal, or discarded

material in any form resulting from domestic,

industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, or

governmental operations. While being used for or

distributed in accordance with their intended uses,

"litter" does not include political pamphlets,

handbills, religious tracts, newspapers, and other

similar printed materials the unsolicited

distribution of which is protected by the

Constitution of the United States or the

Constitution of North Carolina.

 

 

This is just one example of how a broad legal definition of littering can cover a geocache.

Are you implying that any geocache in NC is considered litter?

 

I don't really believe that's what you're saying.

 

By the way, part (a) has the striking omission of the word hide. That is what we do with our caches, isn't it?

[ju66l3r]

I'm trying to understand why geocachers are willing to accept the opinion that non-cachers seem to have that a cache is trash. If you are so ready to "see their point of view" you're a lot closer to meekly accepting a ruling that a cache is indeed trash.

 

Does that mean that a geocache is something different depending upon which park it winds up in? If I place a baseball on the ground anywhere, it is still a baseball. I don't care if I do it in a national park, in my own yard, or at the North pole, it is still a baseball.

 

Are any of you ready to add the line "some may consider them to be trash" to the definition of the word geocache?

This is simply not true. My post is only to point out that a geocache does fit the legal definition of litter (in NC, although I imagine most states have similar laws). I do not consider it litter, I only point out that somone could reasonably do so. This is the problem with not informing the person responsible for the public area you plan on leaving a geocache in, which is the crux of the "get permission" crowd's argument.

 

If someone could reasonably consider a geocache to be litter, then someone could reasonably decide geocaches are not allowed in their park. The point is to approach that someone with more knowledge about geocaching and its benefits before they are forced to make the litter/non-litter designation on their own without the benefit of said help.

 

I do not meekly accept _anything_ (as should be evident by my commitment to these issues in my posts).

 

The metaphysical-ness of the "baseball" aside, things are not as cut-and-dry as "is it a baseball?". Yes, of course it is a baseball. That does NOT preclude it from also being a present, a road hazard, a dog toy, a collectible, or any one of another descriptional categories. If it is left in a NC public park without being placed in a proper receptacle, it would be litter. If it is left in your own front yard in NC, it would not be litter. The baseball does not exist in a vacuum in which being "a baseball" is all that matters, just as a geocache does not exist in a completely geocache-aware society in which being "a geocache" keeps it from also being considered litter. Establishing the connection to the person who might consider it litter (aka the land manager) would go a long way to putting it in the right context so that if it were to be reported, it would be left alone secure in the manager's mind as having an owner who will come by regularly and visitors who will be CITO and so on.

 

The definition of the word "geocache" does not need to include anything about other's assumptions of the word, but when dealing with the person who's responsible for the land you placed it on, you must take these misguided assumptions into account. Our best response to these assumptions is to avoid them entirely by notifying that person of what geocaching is and that there will be such a geocache on their managed land soon.

[+seneca]

I'm trying to understand why geocachers are willing to accept the opinion that non-cachers seem to have that a cache is trash. If you are so ready to "see their point of view" you're a lot closer to meekly accepting a ruling that a cache is indeed trash.

 

I get the same feeling you do. Some geocachers appear to have bought into the notion that there is something harmful with a geocache. As I have said earlier, I see a typical hidden geocache as something completely devoid of hurtful qualities. It is not unsightly. It is not hazardous to the environment. It will not cause injury. It is certainly not doing any more harm than it would be if someone moved it to a landfill or incinerated it. As human activity goes, hiding a geocache is benign.

 

The only reasonable issue that a land manager could have with a hidden cache, is that if I tell geocachers about its location, they might come - but I have the right to communicate a location - and since the land is accessible to the public, geocachers have the right to come. It doesn’t appear that anyone is taking issue with that (I hope).

 

I do not even think about asking permission to engage in a benign activity, unless the government has passed a clear, unambiguous law that specifically requires me to do so.

 

(I note that the absurd sounding NC State Law on Littering defines "can" and "container" as litter - this would surely be interpreted as single use discarded "cans" or "containers" otherwise they would be breaking their own littering laws by placing garbage "cans" in their parks)

Edited December 3, 2003 by seneca

[+nincehelser]

I'm trying to understand why geocachers are willing to accept the opinion that non-cachers seem to have that a cache is trash. If you are so ready to "see their point of view" you're a lot closer to meekly accepting a ruling that a cache is indeed trash.

I don't see it that way at all. Accepting another's viewpoint does more to bring you closer to a point of mutual understanding. It doesn't mean you're giving in. It's not a sign of weakness. It just means you're willing to take in a bigger picture than you might have had. You may not agree with it, but you might have to adjust to it.

 

To clarifiy, I don't think geocaches are trash, but I understand how some people might consider them as such. That's where the education and lobbying come in...it may take some effort to make others accept your point of view. It might be futile. Perhaps you might need to conceed your own viewpoint for pragmatic reasons.

 

Wild Example: Let's say you jump out of an airplane. Are you falling to the ground, or is the ground rushing toward you? It's all a matter of viewpoint. But the ground doesn't care about this. It's not going to do anything to prevent you from going splat. Only you can deploy your parachute and save yourself.

 

Rules and regulations are a lot like the ground sometimes.

 

George

Edited December 3, 2003 by nincehelser

[ju66l3r]

I get the same feeling you do. Some geocachers appear to have bought into the notion that there is something harmful with a geocache. As I have said earlier, I see a typical hidden geocache as something completely devoid of hurtful qualities.

 

(I note that the absurd sounding NC State Law on Littering defines "can" and "container" as litter - this would surely be interpreted as single use discarded "cans" or "containers" otherwise they would be breaking their own littering laws by placing garbage "cans" in their parks)

I don't get that same feeling at all (at least not from this thread or the others I have ever read here). I think some of us are not wary of geocaches, we are concerned with how geocaches will be seen by those responsible for the lands we put them on. To them, a geocache is at best an interesting new game they had never heard of and at worst no better than a candy wrapper left in the woods.

 

If you can't see that someone not aware of geocaching might consider a geocache to be little more than an organized trash problem, then you are operating very blissfully. May you never run into one of these unknowing land managers whose preconceived notions about plastic boxes being left in their woods are it being a slight against nature, because if you do, it will already be too late for geocaching in that area until you can change their minds otherwise.

 

Feel free to read the entire link concerning littering although I did quote the part responsible for listing the containers as not being litter, since they are for the containment of litter...here I'll quote it AGAIN:

 

except:

(1) When the property is designated by the State or

political subdivision thereof for the disposal of

garbage and refuse, and the person is authorized to

use the property for this purpose; or

(2) Into a litter receptacle in a manner that the

litter will be prevented from being carried away or

deposited by the elements upon any part of the

private or public property or waters.

[+seneca]

From NC State Law on Littering:

 

[....]

          "Litter" means any garbage, rubbish, trash, refuse,

            can, bottle, box, container, wrapper, paper, paper

            product, tire, appliance, mechanical equipment or

            part, building or construction material, tool,

            machinery, wood, motor vehicle or motor vehicle

            part, vessel, aircraft, farm machinery or

            equipment, sludge from a waste treatment facility,

            water supply treatment plant, or air pollution

            control facility, dead animal, or discarded

            material in any form resulting from domestic,

            industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, or

            governmental operations. While being used for or

            distributed in accordance with their intended uses,

            "litter" does not include political pamphlets,

            handbills, religious tracts, newspapers, and other

            similar printed materials the unsolicited

            distribution of which is protected by the

            Constitution of the United States or the

            Constitution of North Carolina.

 

Hey, we can resolve two contentious issues at once! Fill all of our caches with religious tracts!

Edited December 3, 2003 by seneca

[ju66l3r]

By the way, it should be duly noted that for the purposes of argument, leaving tires in a public park gazebo is just as much littering as leaving a plastic container in the public park woods 40 feet away.....at least in NC.

(both are listed explicitly in the littering law quoted above...)

 

[+TEAM 360]

Wild Example: Let's say you jump out of an airplane. Are you falling to the ground, or is the ground rushing toward you? It's all a matter of viewpoint. But the ground doesn't care about this. It's not going to do anything to prevent you from going splat. Only you can deploy your parachute and save yourself.

You are most definitely falling towards the ground, unless the Earth jumps out of its orbit by a few thousand feet right at that moment, just to make you go splat.

 

I agree with Seneca on the point that there is nothing inherently wrong with the geocaches themselves. I DO have reservations about the fight to allow caching EVERYWHERE (Wildlife Refuges and Preserves). We don't NEED every square inch of land made available to put caches in. Leaving those areas alone won't start a landslide effect against geocaching. DEMANDING that caches be allowed, and then placing caches in those areas, CAN be detrimental to the environment and begin a backlash against the game. I also agree that if the land is open to other activities, such as a city park, that one should not have to ask for permission to place a cache, no more than playing ball or frisbee. That point was right on the mark. By the way, what size are those tires you want to get rid of, Nince?

[+geospotter]

From NC State Law on Littering:

 

[....]

          "Litter" means any garbage, rubbish, trash, refuse,

            can, bottle, box, container, wrapper, paper, paper

            product, tire, appliance, mechanical equipment or

            part, building or construction material, tool,

            machinery, wood, motor vehicle or motor vehicle

            part, vessel, aircraft, farm machinery or

            equipment, sludge from a waste treatment facility,

            water supply treatment plant, or air pollution

            control facility, dead animal, or discarded

            material in any form resulting from domestic,

            industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, or

            governmental operations. While being used for or

            distributed in accordance with their intended uses,

            "litter" does not include political pamphlets,

            handbills, religious tracts, newspapers, and other

            similar printed materials the unsolicited

            distribution of which is protected by the

            Constitution of the United States or the

            Constitution of North Carolina.

 

Hey, we can resolve two contentious issues at once! Fill all of our caches with religious tracts!

I was thinking exactly the same thing!

[+Bloencustoms]

Seneca, I like the irony of the "garbage can" example. I don't recall seeing the word "recepticle" in the definition of litter. What is a cache, if not a recepticle for logs and trades?

 

ju66l3r, I'm happy to see that you agree that the assumption that a geocache is trash is misguided.

 

I am willing to agree that it would be great if land managers all knew exactly what caching was all about. What I don't agree with, is the need to ask their permission to hide something which (if I'm correct and we all agree) is not trash, litter, or abandoned property in the public land they look after. Sure, there are some people who can accidentaly find a well concealed container, bearing a description of it's purpose, and decide it is trash. There are some people who deep down know it isn't trash, and wish to define it as such to save themselves the trouble of dealing with a new land use.

 

My point is that I don't believe I'm breaking any laws by caching in an area that doesn't have caching laws. I believe I'm within my rights to do anything I wish to as long as I'm not breaking any laws.

 

As I stated earlier in the thread, some local cachers have banded together to try asking permission for a local park. We spoke with some more people today, but the head honcho was in meetings all morning and was unable to talk to us.

 

The park we are asking permission for contains one of the states oldest caches, and one of my own, among others. I am going to feel like a real dumb--- if they decide that caching is not a compatible use. We are trying to get permission to hold a CITO event, (because cachers are apparently the only ones who can tell the difference ) in an attempt to show them the benefits the sport can bring to the park. In addition, we are trying to gain permission to place another physical cache there. Today, one person we spoke to asked a question we had been dreading, if there were any caches already in the park. As I was not the one making the calls, I couldn't make any guesses about their reaction. We intend to invite them on a hunt, to better illustrate the process, and bring some kids along to demonstrate that the activity can be enjoyed by people of various age groups (families).

 

The biggest hurdle we have encountered so far is explaining what exactly caching is. They just don't seem to be able to grasp the concept. Unfortunately, I am not able to talk directly with any of the officials, because we work the same hours.

Anyway, if the act of asking permission results in our little group being responsible for the archival of the many caches the park already contains, you can bet that's the last time I ever ask permission to do something that for all intents and purposes is ok anyway.

 

Sometimes, I feel like the fact that you are asking permission to do something implies that there is something wrong with it. If there were nothing wrong with it, you wouldn't need to ask.

[+seneca]

... After reading the responses, I bet I have an idea of which political party each respondent belongs to (with the exception of Seneca, who every time I think I have him pegged, he throws a curve ball).

I've been described as a right-wing, left-leaning, conserberal. But I really don’t like labels.

[+Criminal]

By the way, it should be duly noted that for the purposes of argument, leaving tires in a public park gazebo is just as much littering as leaving a plastic container in the public park woods 40 feet away.....at least in NC.

(both are listed explicitly in the littering law quoted above...)

 

Which all means that the electrician who installed a junction box for the gazebo lighting is also littering?

 

Again, let's stick to the topic or close the dadgum thread down. I think it's run its course.

[+Criminal]

What is it with the self-righteous self-loathing? If you think geocaching is littering, and you participate in the game, why are you complaining about the litter you look for? Why are you playing at all?

 

Is it your point to get permission to litter?

Edited December 3, 2003 by Criminal

[+cachew nut]

I thought that it was already pointed out that use of the gazebo already requires a permit, so that answers the tire storage question.

[+nincehelser]

Which all means that the electrician who installed a junction box for the gazebo lighting is also littering?

Probably not. He was probably hired to do so by the managment of the gazebo. It's completely sanctioned.

 

I can't imagine why an electrician would install junction boxes without a good reason, and knowing unions, would do it without being paid for it.

 

But then some electricians just might be crazy. As long as he doesn't disturb my snow tires, I guess I really don't care.

 

George

Edited December 3, 2003 by nincehelser