One More Time

[jimmy689]

I sent out some e-mails to the local park systems that I like to go to. I wanted to see if they even knew about geocaching and if they have any policy.

I wrote to Monmouth County parks in central NJ and the person who responded hade no idea what I was talking about. I also wrote to the Ocean County parks and this is the reply I got. It was very encouraging.

Jim,

 

Geocaching, in and of itself, is not illegal. In some cases the geocacher

and searcher may be in violation of the rules and regulations of the

location where the cache is placed. This is not the case with the caches

at Cattus Island Park. I check the caches periodically to be sure no one

has added offensive items, otherwise all is kosher. Personally, I feel

that it is a great way for the public to passively enjoy our park.

Enjoy... and do not hesitate to contact me with further questions.

 

Christopher Claus

Principal Park Naturalist

Cooper Environmental Center

Cattus Island County Park

[jimmy689]

Here is another e-mail reply from the head guy at Wells Mills Park.

 

Jim, your message was forwarded to myself and the supervisor at Cattus

Island County Park. As far as I know, the Ocean County Parks Department has

no policy at this time on the issue. I am aware of several caches in the

park that I supervise ( Wells Mills County Park in Waretown), and I have no

problem with the activity, as it has no adverse environmental impacts.

Please be aware that other public lands may have a policy however, and the

fact that an individual has placed a cache on the tract does not mean that

it was done with permission of the agency which owns or manages it. If you

want to be safe, I would check with the individual office first. As for

caches on private lands, any entry without permission of the landowner is

considered illegal. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any

further assistance.

 

German Georgieff

Principal Park Naturalist

Wells Mills County Park

(609) 971-3085

 

Seems to me this is a good thing so far.

[+Criminal]

Awesome! Sounds like a positive response to me.

[+Bloencustoms]

You want to pick my lottery numbers? Seriouosly, that's good news. I have my fingers crossed awaiting a descision that will seal my opinion on permission up for good. I hope I'm proven wrong.

[+briansnat]

Oh well, so much for us flying under the radar here in New Jersey

Edited December 4, 2003 by briansnat

[+Alan2]

Yeah. You finally got rid of the pirates and now you'll have to deal with smokey the bear!

[+nincehelser]

Those are exactly the kinds of responses I would expect in most cases.

 

There's no need to fear asking permission. You may occasionaly get an unnegotiable "no", but so what? I bet we'll find the "no's" are exceptions rather than the rule.

 

This kind of dialog promoting geocaching does far more good than any mis-guided flag waving.

 

George

[+Renegade Knight]

One reply I got was "if the geocache is going to stay for longer than a day a multi day event permit will be needed, plus after the event is over the geocaching needs to be removed".

 

The irony here is that this is from a park system that permits geocaching as a great use of their parks.

[+woodsters]

I have a question about the email you sent them first of all Jimmy. What did you state in it?

 

All though the responses were great fro the argument of asking permission, their content kind of makes me wonder. Both respond back about caching not being illegal there in their parks and about their policies. One also stated about the activity has no adverse envirnomental impacts.

 

Was your email to them asking for permission or was it questioning them whether or not if their policy allows geocaching and how it affects the environment? Both knew of caching and knew of caches there in their park. No offense, but it makes me wonder if you were trying to stir something up. It's one thing to make plans to place a cache in those areas, but it's another to outright just ask those kind of questions. If you were wanting to place a cache, why not just tell them what caching is (which they already know) and then ask them if it was ok to place a cahce or two there. I wouldn't of lead them anywhere else with it....

 

Just my .02

[jimmy689]

Here is the e-mail I wrote to the parks including the date I sent it. I do not ask for information to " stir things up". I simply wanted to know the parks position on geocaching. Since I got a positive response from two of the nicest parks in Ocean County I thought I would share it with the rest of you. I f you believe I have less than sincere motives for my inquiries then I will refrain from posting any other correspondence positive or otherwise.

Here is my original e-mail I sent to the parks:

I am sending this letter to the park systems that I frequently visit.

----- Original Message -----

From: jim

To: info@monmouthcountyparks.com

Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 9:15 AM

Subject: Info

 

Hello. I am writing to find out the park systems stand,if any, on the relatively new hobby of geocaching. I just started in this hobby and I understand there is some controversy as to its legality. I enjoy getting out in nature and learning how to use my gps unit more effectively. I just don't want to get into trouble with the law.

Any info would be helpful.

Thank you very much,

Jim D.

Howell, NJ

[jimmy689]

Hey Woodsters. Any thoughts?

[+woodsters]

nope

[+Bloencustoms]

I was thinking about the permission process yesterday, and wondering why it has taken five days so far (and counting) to explain to a park manager the game of hide and go seek.

 

We were all playing this game as young children, and understood it perfectly then.

 

Then it ocurred to me, what if the act of asking permission actually arouses suspicion? Think about this, what if you called a park, and told them you were a member of a growing number of people who enjoy geoleaping, a harmless physical sport where people post the coordinates of objects in public places they have lept over, and others go find them, leap, and post their experiences to the internet? Would they think "Hmm... this is strange and new, let me look into it more." Or would they respond with "Go ahead, there's no law against leaping."

 

I tend to believe that asking permission to do something implies that permission is needed to do it. This can cause problems getting the permission you seek.

 

In the ongoing effort to gain permission to cache in a local park, the person in charge has viewed the website, and read the guidelines. Their response was that they needed to hear about other park policies that allow geocaching, because they noticed that NP's and FWS lands have caching bans. This person has never heard of caching untill we brought it up. I'm concerned that if people look to the federal bans for an example of how to handle caching, pretty soon there will be few places left to conduct the activity. I think the very fact that a cache can exist unnoticed in a park for a couple of years, quietly collecting logs from cachers who have enjoyed it speaks to the fact that it is a compatible use. The fact that it can exist unnoticed also brings me to wonder why on earth it should be brought to the attention of people who might make a decision based on haste or convenience, rather than take the time to really learn what the sport is all about.

 

It has been mentioned that it would be better to bring caching to someone's attention before any caches wind up in a given park. I can see the logic behind this. But there are many many parks with caches in them already, managed by people who have never heard of the sport. What do we do about those parks? Do we continue placing without permission? Or do we risk the removal of the existing caches? It is indeed a tough descision to make, particularly if bringing the activity to light will affect the caches of others. Trying to be the good guy could make you very unpopular if things don't go as planned.

 

Obviously we all want the same thing, to be able to place and find caches where they are appropriate. So I ask of those who would gain permission first, what do you suggest we do if there are already caches in a park, and how do we respond to the owners of caches that might get removed as a result of our well meaning request to get permission?

[+woodsters]

Your right Bloen it is a tough call...personally I probably wouldn't bother with the permission thing if caches were already there. Actually I would have to think long and hard before putting a cache in the same park as another..I may do it, then again I may decide not to. For the sake of other caches in a given park, I would not bring light to them. Like you stated it could have bad consequences on their caches. I still do believe though that it is better to seek permission. At least in uncached areas. Yes the ban in some federal places may look bad for other places who may wish to follow suit. The fact is that permission was asked from the get go and it makes it more difficult now. Sometimes I feel like we need to change it now, but then again, you never know what the outcome will be. Then again you never know what the outcome will be if you don't.

[+Bloencustoms]

I forgot to add, the person(s) we contacted asked if there were already caches in the park. Well, there was no way to avoid bringing them to their attention then. So, it's a waiting game, now. I'll get the latest info tonight when I see one of the other cachers involved in this attempt. We are trying to get some help explaining the sport to them, and I am confident that the people who's help we elisted will be able to give them the information they requested. Once that happens, the ball's in their court.

 

EDIT:

 

By the way Woodsters, we downloaded and viewed the presentation from your site. It looks great, Geospotter did a nice job. We are going to make a couple of disks in case they prove useful. Thanks for making it available.

Edited December 6, 2003 by Bloencustoms

[+nincehelser]

Obviously we all want the same thing, to be able to place and find caches where they are appropriate. So I ask of those who would gain permission first, what do you suggest we do if there are already caches in a park, and how do we respond to the owners of caches that might get removed as a result of our well meaning request to get permission?

Well, the way I look at it, if they had placed the caches with permission in the first place, they wouldn't be at risk now.

 

If you have permission, you have some leg to stand on if someone challenges you. You can sleep peacefully.

 

If you don't ask permission, then you run the risk that someone will "find out" and tell you take your caches elsewhere, or just flat out remove them.

 

Witness the infamous "Caver Cache Burning". If the caches had been sanctioned with permission, then the cache placer would have had a much stronger argument against the cavers. But it turned out there was no permission for the caches, tempers flared, yada-yada-yada, and thus it seems the land managers have taken an over-correction and banned all caches in that area.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that a sanctioned (i.e. proper permission is in place) has a stronger chance of being defended than a cache that has been "outed".

 

George

[+nincehelser]

I forgot to add, the person(s) we contacted asked if there were already caches in the park. Well, there was no way to avoid bringing them to their attention then.

I once came across three rangers looking for a geocache. It was pretty obvious as they had the geocaching.com printouts, complete with manilla folders, clipboards, and a huge GPS receiver. And of course the uniforms. It looked like an uncomfortably formal expedition.

 

I tried to avoid them, but they saw my GPS and asked me straight out if I was "geocaching". The whole "to tell or not to tell" issue flashed through my head, and I was worried that if I said anything, I'd put the cache at risk.

 

I 'fessed up, though. Luckily, permission was obtained, and the rangers were just out to actually see the local caches and learn more about the game. I ended up having to help them find a micro (hey, us taxpayers are paying those folks by the hour, aren't we?

 

George

[+Bloencustoms]

Another point to consider is (and there's really no way of knowing, unfortunately) what if the land manager who says "no" in a park which contained caches would have said no in the first place? At least some people got to enjoy the caches while they were there. At best, they will ask that they be removed and archived, at worst the cache placer might face charges.

 

One positive thing about our particular attempt to gain permission is that we did approach them before they stumbled upon one. That has to go slightly in our favour.

 

I'm in agreement that caches placed with special permission stand a better chance of sticking around than those that don't. But the question remains, what do we do about the ones already out there?

 

Should we contact all of the owners of caches in a particular area and ask them for permission... to ask permission? I'm looking for a solution to a very real problem. How can we ask permission without endangering existing caches, and should we even try to?

[ju66l3r]

How can we ask permission without endangering existing caches, and should we even try to?

I tend to agree with nincehelser on this one. If there are caches in a park and you would like to place one there as well, then you would go to the park operator and ask to place a cache there. If they say no and then tell you to remove all of the other caches, then ask them to first sit down with you, the local geocaching society, or whomever and discuss how caches could be introduced to the park system in a way both parties can agree on. If by the end of all your hard work in trying to get acceptance, then they are still set against it, those caches will have to be removed, but clearly those hiders were not in agreement with GC.com rules anyways (since one of the rules is to gain permission with the land manager so technically they never should have been approved).

 

I personally would not feel too bad for too long because of the numerous other places the cache could be rehid close by that do accept geocaches and so on.

 

Because geocaching is such a valuable addition to almost any park, I can't imagine anyone saying no and sticking with it if they are willing to sit down and hear about all of the benefits and harmlessness geocaching has to offer. So, I wouldn't be worried about uprooting anyone's caches.

 

I don't know who this next part is in response to, but someone said something about the Federal Ban being used as precedence. To any official using that argument, you can respond by pointing out that a large number of state and county officials have worked with regional geocaching organizations to develop permits and agreeable criteria for leaving caches in parks previously marked by a geocaching ban.

 

For every federal ban (2), I can think of over 5 agreements that have opened parks previously not allowing geocaching. These should be good counter-examples and places to direct inquisitive land managers who may be worried about opening their borders as well.

 

It would be nice if somewhere on the regulations page (where there are big headlines against placement in federal parks) if there were a series of links to more local specific regulations that have *allowed* geocaching into areas it was not in before. This way land managers who may come to GC.com to search for more information will get a more balanced view of where it's allowed and not allowed (as opposed to "don't do this this and this!!").

[+Bloencustoms]

It would be nice if somewhere on the regulations page (where there are big headlines against placement in federal parks) if there were a series of links to more local specific regulations that have *allowed* geocaching into areas it was not in before. This way land managers who may come to GC.com to search for more information will get a more balanced view of where it's allowed and not allowed (as opposed to "don't do this this and this!!").

 

Excellent idea.

[+nincehelser]

It would be nice if somewhere on the regulations page (where there are big headlines against placement in federal parks) if there were a series of links to more local specific regulations that have *allowed* geocaching into areas it was not in before. This way land managers who may come to GC.com to search for more information will get a more balanced view of where it's allowed and not allowed (as opposed to "don't do this this and this!!").

 

Excellent idea.

I think someone recently started a site that was collecting and listing geocaching policies by state or something like that, but darned if I can remember where it is.

 

George

[+nincehelser]

Should we contact all of the owners of caches in a particular area and ask them for permission... to ask permission? I'm looking for a solution to a very real problem. How can we ask permission without endangering existing caches, and should we even try to?

I wouldn't call it "asking permission", but there's no harm in talking to other regional geocachers to see what the "weather" is.

 

It probably makes good sense in areas that could be "iffy".

 

George

[+geospotter]

I agree, excellent idea about a regulations page.

 

Bloencustoms, thank you for your kind words about the presentation. I hope you find it useful.

 

One thing that might be causing their delay in getting back to you is they might be checking out the other caches. This could go either way. If they find one that is causing problems for them they will probably remove it. But, if they find one, properly placed so as not to cause a problem, and they take the time to read the logs (in cache and online), they just might understand. Hopefully they get the same feeling finding it that we all do...

 

I hope for the best.

Edited December 6, 2003 by geospotter

[+woodsters]

I would ensure that any caches already in the park are up to snuff.. being that there are no dangerous things and that they are serviceable...If they come across an old soggy one, it would not look favorable...also the positioning of the cache may need to be adjusted. They may take offense if it's disturbing some wildlife or something...

 

But yes, the ongoing of avoiding the rule of seeking permission, which I'm not even sure how long that rule has been around, has caused soem problems. It could in fact ruin a lot of great places to place caches. I think in the ideal world, that it would of been better for cachers to educate the parks on the sport and interact with them...once they know what is and become comfortable with it, then things would of been better. A lot of people here the word geo and think geology..They think you are wanting to excevate rocks or dirt or do something with it. It automatically can send out a red flag...

[+woodsters]

I think that site is http://www.geocachingpolicy.info/

[+geospotter]

Woodsters, thanks for the link.

[+Alan2]

Then it ocurred to me, what if the act of asking permission actually arouses suspicion? Think about this, what if you called a park, and told them you were a member of a growing number of people who enjoy geoleaping, a harmless physical sport where people post the coordinates of objects in public places they have lept over, and others go find them, leap, and post their experiences to the internet? Would they think "Hmm... this is strange and new, let me look into it more." Or would they respond with "Go ahead, there's no law against leaping."

 

The way a bureaucracy works, you'll probably get a repsponce that says its fine if you're leaping over a rock. But if you're leaping over anything alive, you'll have to file an environmental impact study to verify you're not endangering some rare species. Just in case you miss and land on it!

[+Sparky-Watts]

Well, and then ya got Evil Knevil (sp) trying to leap over the Snake River Canyon....

[+briansnat]

Hello. I am writing to find out the park systems stand,if any, on the relatively new hobby of geocaching. I just started in this hobby and I understand there is some controversy as to its legality. I enjoy getting out in nature and learning how to use my gps unit more effectively. I just don't want to get into trouble with the law.

 

Bad letter. If I were a land manager who was ignorant about the sport and received something like this, it would already prejudice me against it. That's almost like some teen asking their parents if they can see a certain movie. "Mom, can I go see Pulp Fiction? I hear there is some cotroversy about whether it's approriate for teens."

 

Get this straight. There is no controversy about the legality of geocaching. I don't know where you got that from. Some places ban it, some regulate it and most have no policy. Where it's banned, its illegal. Where it's regulated, or there is no policy, its legal. Period. And if it's legal, then there is no chance that you can get in trouble with the law. Pretty cut and dried.

 

If you MUST write a letter like this, how about:

 

"I'm writing to find out if Monmouth County Parks has a geocaching policy."

 

There are 3 likely answers. "Yes, we ban geocaching", " Yes, we regulate geocaching". or "No, we don't have a policy". If the answer is any of the three, you still aren't breaking any law by seeking the cache (unless you are trespassing, or entering an area that is off limits to the public). There are no regulations against LOOKING for a cache, so you can sleep well, no matter what.

 

If you plan to place a cache, that changes things a bit. If they are banned, you place your cache at the risk of being fined, or jailed. If they regulate cache placement, follow the regulations, or risk spoiling the sport for the rest of us, and possibly being jailed, or fined. If they have no policy, then go ahead and place your cache.

Edited December 6, 2003 by briansnat

[+Sparky-Watts]

Very well put, briansnat.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I don't think I would be too concerned about prosecution for placing a cache in a park without permission.

 

The standard for criminal prosecution is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The fact that there is no POSTED rule against (I assume this for this hypothetical case), a showing of intent is impossible.

 

If the law cited does not require intent, successful prosecution is still possible, but very few prosecutors are going to waste their time on a piddling case like this would be unless ther is some great public outcry or if somehow the cache caused someone's death (or WORSE YET- the death of a SNAIL DARTER or such).

 

I just can't imagine a judge and JURY sentencing a good law abiding citizen with no criminal history and no criminal intent to a Federal prison for ten years for leaving a tupperware tub in their local National Wildlife Preserve.

 

Really! Come on!

[+Alan2]

Hey Dave. Why don't you plant one as a test case?

[+nincehelser]

Get this straight. There is no controversy about the legality of geocaching. I don't know where you got that from. Some places ban it, some regulate it and most have no policy. Where it's banned, its illegal. Where it's regulated, or there is no policy, its legal. Period. And if it's legal, then there is no chance that you can get in trouble with the law. Pretty cut and dried.

So if there is a policy against leaving personal property behind, then placing a geocache is illegal? Correct?

 

George

[+Renegade Knight]

So if there is a policy against leaving personal property behind, then placing a geocache is illegal? Correct?

 

George

Most policies about personal property are so agencies can deal with junk left behind or abandoned.

 

The laws have to be worded in a general fashion and that in turn lets them use it for geocaching if they don't want to allow them.

 

If an agency allows caches they won't invoke the law and can justify it by saying they are not abandoned property and therefore the laws are not intended to apply in this situation.

 

So to answer the question. It depends on the landmanger.

[+nincehelser]

So if there is a policy against leaving personal property behind, then placing a geocache is illegal?  Correct?

 

George

Most policies about personal property are so agencies can deal with junk left behind or abandoned.

 

The laws have to be worded in a general fashion and that in turn lets them use it for geocaching if they don't want to allow them.

 

If an agency allows caches they won't invoke the law and can justify it by saying they are not abandoned property and therefore the laws are not intended to apply in this situation.

 

So to answer the question. It depends on the landmanger.

So if they decide caches aren't abandoned property, that essentially makes a policy decsion that geocaching is OK by exemption, and that is hopefully codified so they don't have to wrestle with this decision every time.

 

If they decide the abandoned property issue holds, then it is illegal. That's an enforcement of old policy. Do they write a new policy explicity banning geocaching, or just continue to use the old policy?

 

So, going back to BrianSnat's "filter", does "no policy" mean "no specfic geocaching policy" or "no policy that applies"?

 

George

[+Alan2]

Yes. I think.

[+Alan2]

Actually they should write a rule specifically prohibiting caching if that's what they want. That's apparently what National Recreation Areas (NRA) do. No cop outs on their part. The other agencies are taking the "easy" way out by applying their definitions to abandoned property and personal property. Neither apply i my opinion, but then my opinion doesn't count.

 

I believe regarding persona property, this has to be held by them if they take it and they have to contact the person to pick it up. The theory here is that often campers or other vistors may leave things by mistake or just lose them. The park has to make an effort to return it. Not sure what happens if it's considered abandoned - whether they have to try to contact you or hold it for a specific period of time.

 

Anyone know?

[jimmy689]

]

 

Bad letter. If I were a land manager who was  ignorant about the sport and received something like this, it would already prejudice me against it. That's almost like some teen asking their parents if they can see a certain movie.  "Mom, can I go see Pulp Fiction?  I hear there is some cotroversy about whether it's approriate for teens."

 

Get this straight. There is no controversy about the legality of geocaching. I don't know where you got that from.  Some places ban it, some regulate it and most have no policy.  Where it's banned, its illegal. Where it's regulated, or there is no policy, its legal. Period. And if  it's legal, then there is no chance that you can get in trouble with the law. Pretty cut and dried.

 

If you MUST write a letter like this, how about:

 

"I'm writing to find out if Monmouth County Parks has a geocaching policy."

 

.

 

 

.

 

I wrote that e-mail very soon after I read about the ban in some national parks.

If I were to write now after all the information I have read in all of these very informative forums, I probably would have worded it differently. I was just nieve in believing people can be resonable.

BTW, In my e-mail to the parks I don't remember asking permission for anything.

[+seneca]

Get this straight. There is no controversy about the legality of geocaching. I don't know where you got that from.  Some places ban it, some regulate it and most have no policy.  Where it's banned, its illegal. Where it's regulated, or there is no policy, its legal. Period. And if  it's legal, then there is no chance that you can get in trouble with the law. Pretty cut and dried.

So if there is a policy against leaving personal property behind, then placing a geocache is illegal? Correct?

 

George

Your conclusion is not logical. "if there is no policy against geocaching, then it is legal" does not mean that "if there is policy against geocaching, then it is illegal".

 

Also, a law that simply prohibits "leaving personal property behind" (and I do not recall any regulation reproduced in these forums that is worded in that precise manner) would very likely not apply to Geocaching. When a freedom is restricted by law (in Canada anyways, which I presume is no more a free country than the US) then it must be done in a clear and unambiguous manner. That is why regulations can get to be so long worded, especially when applying to prohibiting activities. It is very difficult (almost impossible) to lawfully prohibit specific activities, using only general terms.

 

The arguments that I have seen to the effect "you could arguably say that geocaching is prohibited under this section of reg. such'n such.... littering - abandonment - etc...." in my opinion would fail. The mere fact that an argument has to be made, suggests that the regulation is not clear and free from ambiguity.

 

If there was a law in a park that said "leaving personal property behind is prohibited", then arguably it would be unlawful to leave a towel on the beach while you went to the restroom. Such argument, which I am sure could be forcefully made by a number of persons who have posted to these forums, would of course fail.

 

I have reviewed the laws and regulations that apply to British Columbia parks, and I am pleased to say that I have not found any that prohibit Geocaching!

 

edit:spelling

Edited December 6, 2003 by seneca

[+Sparky-Watts]

 

Also,  a law that simply prohibits  "leaving personal property behind"  (and I do not recall any regulation reproduced in these forums that is worded in that precise manner) would very likely not apply to Geocaching. 

 

If there was a law in a park that said  "leaving personal property behind is prohibited",  then arguably it would be unlawful to leave a towel on the beach while you went to the restroom.  Such argument,  which I am sure could be forcefully made by a number of persons who have posted to these forums,  would of course fail.

When I leave my car in a parking lot, I am not abadoning it. I intend to go back and get it. So leaving a cache in a national park or whatever is not abandoning it, either. I, or somone, intends to go back and get it.

Edited December 6, 2003 by Sparky-Watts

[+nincehelser]

Your conclusion is not logical. "if there is no policy against geocaching, then it is legal" doe not mean that "if there is policy against geocaching, then it is illegal".

 

Also, a law that simply prohibits "leaving personal property behind" (and I do not recall any regulation reproduced in these forums that is worded in that precise manner) would very likely not apply to Geocaching. When a freedom is restricted by law (in Canada anyways, which I presume is no more a free country than the US) then it must be done in a clear and unambiguous manner. That is why regulations can get to be so long worded, especially when applying to prohibiting activities. It is very difficult (almost impossible) to lawfully prohibit specific activities, using only general terms.

 

The arguments that I have seen to the effect "you could arguably say that geocaching is prohibited under this section of reg. such'n such.... littering - abandonment - etc...." in my opinion would fail. The mere fact that an argument has to be made, suggests that the regulation is not clear and free from ambiguity.

 

If there was a law in a park that said "leaving personal property behind is prohibited", then arguably it would be unlawful to leave a towel on the beach while you went to the restroom. Such argument, which I am sure could be forcefully made by a number of persons who have posted to these forums, would of course fail.

 

I have reviewed the laws and regulations that apply to British Columbia parks, and I am pleased to say that I have not found any that prohibit Geocaching!

That's just not the way things work.

 

Typically, a blanket law is in place that says "don't leave stuff in the park". That covers a whole lot of ground ('cause it's a big blanket), including geocaching.

 

It doesn't have to get real specific. Frankly, it's when people feel they require real specific laws, that they get convulted and unwieldy. That's something to be avoided.

 

Our preference is for broad simple laws. That doesn't mean they aren't clear or ambiguous.

 

If plain simple language were allowed to prevail, such a law would be worded: "DO NOT LEAVE YOUR STUFF IN THE PARK!"

 

But then the lawyers and psuedo-lawyers would come in and debate the essence of "STUFF", and how left-handed widgets are really "THINGS", not "STUFF", so left-handed widgets should be perfectly legal. Then come the people who want to leave free-wheeling-deelyboppers....And so it goes....

 

Common sense says that if you go to the restroom, you're coming back, thus the towel isn't abandoned. If you left the towel, and then packed up and left the park, it could be said you abandoned it. If the towel was really nasty and torn up, it could be considered "litter" right off the bat.

 

And let's not hear anything about how it is a "blanket" law, and not a "towel" one.

 

George

[+nincehelser]

When I leave my car in a parking lot, I am not abadoning it. I intend to go back and get it. So leaving a cache in a national park or whatever is not abandoning it, either. I, or somone, intends to go back and get it.

You may intend to go back and get your car, but depending on the particular parking lot, it will eventually be towed.

 

"Abandonment" isn't something the law lets you personally define as you wish. Someone else typically makes the "abandonment" judugement. You may not agree with it, of course, and perhaps you can argue your case, but there's no guarantee.

 

George

[+Sparky-Watts]

True, and as you stated in your previous post, there are bound to be lawyers on either side that will argue for their definition of both "abandonment" and "personal property". But that's a whole other ball of string! I guess, with all that's been said, I'm not going to worry about it, because there is only one National Wildlife Refuge remotely close to me (100+ miles) and I've never been there, and probably never will. I'll just find other places to cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

Typically, a blanket law is in place that says "don't leave stuff in the park". That covers a whole lot of ground ('cause it's a big blanket), including geocaching.

 

It doesn't have to get real specific. Frankly, it's when people feel they require real specific laws, that they get convulted and unwieldy. That's something to be avoided.

 

Our preference is for broad simple laws. That doesn't mean they aren't clear or ambiguous.

 

If plain simple language were allowed to prevail, such a law would be worded: "DO NOT LEAVE YOUR STUFF IN THE PARK!"

 

But then the lawyers and psuedo-lawyers would come in and debate the essence of "STUFF", and how left-handed widgets are really "THINGS", not "STUFF", so left-handed widgets should be perfectly legal. Then come the people who want to leave free-wheeling-deelyboppers....And so it goes....

 

Common sense says that if you go to the restroom, you're coming back, thus the towel isn't abandoned. If you left the towel, and then packed up and left the park, it could be said you abandoned it. If the towel was really nasty and torn up, it could be considered "litter" right off the bat.

 

And let's not hear anything about how it is a "blanket" law, and not a "towel" one.

 

George

The laws are broad to give them the authority to deal with a variety of problems that come up. Key word is 'problem'. Thus trash dumping, abandoned property, and all the variations such a caver who died in a cave. You have to have the authority to remove the trash, the property, and the hikers backpack etc.

 

The laws were made to allow the land manager to do the job they need to do. The job is defined by the reason the park, the forest ect is there. If they feel that geocaching enhances the use of the park, and a lot of land mangars do, then geocaches are not a problem. The intent of the law is not violoted.

 

You seem to be applying the letter of the law to geocaches in general and missing the intent. Doing that will eventually force the issue and yet another law allowing or specifially outlawing geocaches will be made.

 

As for plain and simple language if everyone understood the intent behind the law, the pages and pages of unwritten guidelines behind "Do not leave your stuff in the park!" we would have no problems. But life is not so simple. A power tripping park ranger would collect camping gear while the people are fishing 100 yards away and fine them for leaving thier stuff. Then fine them because they can't haul it away in their car because he impounded it. This is happening with geocaches in areas that have a different intrepetation of what the intent of the law is and what their mission is.

[+seneca]

Your conclusion is not logical.  "if there is no policy against geocaching,  then it is legal"  doe not mean that "if there is policy against geocaching, then it is illegal".

 

Also,  a law that simply prohibits  "leaving personal property behind"  (and I do not recall any regulation reproduced in these forums that is worded in that precise manner) would very likely not apply to Geocaching.  When a freedom is restricted by law (in Canada anyways, which I presume is no more a free country than the US)  then it must be done in a clear and unambiguous manner.  That is why regulations can get to be so long worded,  especially when applying to prohibiting activities.  It is very difficult (almost impossible) to lawfully prohibit specific activities, using only general terms.

 

The arguments that I have seen to the effect  "you could arguably say that geocaching is prohibited under this section of reg. such'n such.... littering - abandonment -  etc...."  in my opinion would fail.  The mere fact that an argument has to be made,  suggests that the regulation is not clear and free from ambiguity.

 

If there was a law in a park that said  "leaving personal property behind is prohibited",  then arguably it would be unlawful to leave a towel on the beach while you went to the restroom.  Such argument,  which I am sure could be forcefully made by a number of persons who have posted to these forums,  would of course fail.

 

I have reviewed the laws and regulations that apply to British Columbia parks,  and I am pleased to say that I have not found any that prohibit Geocaching!

That's just not the way things work.

 

You, in my opinion, are wrong. That is the way things work (at least in Canada - if an American lawyer out there provides an opinion that the US constitution provides for less freedom that the Canadian Constitution, and allows freedoms to be taken away by public officials in the discretionary, so called "common sense" manner you have suggested, then I may stand to be corrected).

 

For now, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

[+woodsters]

When I leave my car in a parking lot, I am not abadoning it. I intend to go back and get it. So leaving a cache in a national park or whatever is not abandoning it, either. I, or somone, intends to go back and get it.

That would depend. One on the length of time. After a certain period of time, if a car still remains unmoved, then it is considered abandoned and may be towed. Caches could be considered abandoned once you leave a park. Or it's evident that you left it there with intent. Of course it's all going to rely upon the land manager. A land manager could understand and be aware of it and allow it or they could not want to deal with it or get peeved and remove it saying it's abandoned property or littering. They would more than likely use some rule/law that has a wide definition that it could fall under. As far as prosecution. No I don't think they would, unless they have a definite law/rule in place for such things and there had already been a warning put out. No more than a land owner would get you for trespassing if it was not posted. They may wanr you first and then if they catch you again, they may prosecute.

[+Alan2]

The statutes referenced by the manager is "abandonment". There is no rule about "leaving things in the park" otherwise they would reference that as it's a better rule to keep you from caching. Since abandonment implies you are giving up your right of ownership, caches do not apply because you are not giving up ownership.

 

Ditto with "trash" litter" and other weasel words. The fact is except for the NRA's which specifically ban caching, the other parks are just using "weasel" words.

[+Alan2]

They would more than likely use some rule/law that has a wide definition that it could fall under.

 

They could, but if they allow anything else to stay overnight that is not specifically allowed, such as a boat, or camping equipment, etc, then they would have to allow caches since there's no specific difference.

[+Renegade Knight]

So if they decide caches aren't abandoned property, that essentially makes a policy decsion that geocaching is OK by exemption, and that is hopefully codified so they don't have to wrestle with this decision every time.

 

If they decide the abandoned property issue holds, then it is illegal. That's an enforcement of old policy. Do they write a new policy explicity banning geocaching, or just continue to use the old policy?

 

So, going back to BrianSnat's "filter", does "no policy" mean "no specfic geocaching policy" or "no policy that applies"?

 

George

A landmanager can justify caches or not as they see fit because the law specifically does not address them.

 

They can decide agaisnt them and point to the abandonded property regulations (which are a sloppy fit but broad enough to possible cover caches) and say "No"

 

Or they can say, they like people using the park they think this is another new use and that it's benign so long as they watch it like any other activity. In this case it fits the mission behind the land to begin with which very offten allows public use in acceptable and responsible fashions. Geocaching fits that also.

 

Landmanagers have a lot of latitide within the laws and regulations they are there to enforce.

 

It's fair to hold the position that geocaching is an acceptable land use until a ruling is made.

[+nincehelser]

Landmanagers have a lot of latitide within the laws and regulations they are there to enforce.

 

It's fair to hold the position that geocaching is an acceptable land use until a ruling is made.

I don't see the logic there.

 

The landmanager makes a decision regarding if he's going to enforce an existing policy or not. You don't get to decide what is acceptable use.

 

You could find yourself staring at a fine or some other penalty.

 

A judge may simply say "you littered", fine you, and move on, without making any explicit ruling about geocaching. Judges are often reluctant to "make law" with their rulings. It happens, of course, but it's not something they do lightly.

 

So lets say you just get fined for littering (or property abandonment). What bearing does that have on geocaching? Nothing specifically, but you'd probably think twice before hiding another cache in that area.

 

George