One More Time

[+nincehelser]

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.

But you aren't the person invoking the word "abandonment". It's the other side.

 

If they challenge you with abandonment, you're going to have to convince them otherwise, or convice whoever sits in the seat of judgement that your counter-argument should prevail.

 

George

[+bons]

You don't get to decide what is acceptable use.

 

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

Such is the price of civil disobedience for those people willing to stand up for what they think are their rights. It's something for sheep to be scared of but no one who values freedom should be cowed into obeying an unjust law.

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.

Judges do not make laws in America. Their job is to interpret the law, not to create new ones. What they do make are rulings, wich may affect how the same law is interpreted later on. And they seem less than reluctant to do that.

[+woodsters]

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.

Camping equipment or a boat would not fall in the same category as long as the owner is there. If someone goes and sets up a tent and then just leaves the tent there and doesn't return, oh I would say in a couple of days, then I would reckon it was abandoned. Same as a boat. If a boat is there for a day or so and there is no one around with it, then they will take recourse and deal with it. Now on the camping thing. If a camper pays a fee and/or has to register, then no it's not abandoned. They are aware of it there and know that the person is registered to be there. There's a big difference in those type of things than with a cache.

[+nincehelser]

You don't get to decide what is acceptable use.

 

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

Such is the price of civil disobedience for those people willing to stand up for what they think are their rights. It's something for sheep to be scared of but no one who values freedom should be cowed into obeying an unjust law.

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.

Judges do not make laws in America. Their job is to interpret the law, not to create new ones. What they do make are rulings, wich may affect how the same law is interpreted later on. And they seem less than reluctant to do that.

Be civilly disobedient all you want, just be sure it's worth it. Frankly, in this case, I'd rather lobby for a change or exemption in the law. It may not have the drama you're looking for, but it's probably more practical.

 

Note that I put "make law" in quotes. Judges don't write the laws, but they can have a dramatic impact on them, sometimes with just an "opinion" and not necessarily a "ruling". Sometimes it's just about the same as actually legislating law.

 

Sometimes a judge will refuse to hear a case. A ruling is never rendered, but it can still have a chilling impact on reality.

 

George

[the 5 little bears]

I really think you guys are stiring something up here you might wish you didnt.I'd be willing to bet that when asked, these people are gonna take the easy way out and say no, then theres no liability on their part, if they say yes then they accept liability,some things are just better left alone.I think the parks are pretty much there to enjoy the way you want as long as its not illegal. if your really concerned about it just try to get a list of the rules and regulations and if there is nothing about caching then there ya go. If people keep asking for permision we wont be able to place caches anywhere but our own private property.

[the 5 little bears]

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.

"as for caches on private lands" did you actually ask him if it was allright to place a cache on private lands. these two letters from some park official sound like they just got done reading a letter from someone that was very anti-geocaching.maybe im reading it wrong. idont know.

[+woodsters]

"as for caches on private lands" did you actually ask him if it was allright to place a cache on private lands. these two letters from some park official sound like they just got done reading a letter from someone that was very anti-geocaching.maybe im reading it wrong. idont know.

Ditto...that's why I questioned it earlier. The letters seemed to be answering some things and the letter he posted in which he wrote didn't touch on those things.... i.e. private lands, adverse environmental damage, etc...

[+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.

Camping equipment or a boat would not fall in the same category as long as the owner is there. If someone goes and sets up a tent and then just leaves the tent there and doesn't return, oh I would say in a couple of days, then I would reckon it was abandoned. Same as a boat. If a boat is there for a day or so and there is no one around with it, then they will take recourse and deal with it. Now on the camping thing. If a camper pays a fee and/or has to register, then no it's not abandoned. They are aware of it there and know that the person is registered to be there. There's a big difference in those type of things than with a cache.

You're right about the tent. Obviously someone abandoned it if they didn't return. But a cache is different. It's placed with the intention of staying there with the placer not returning for awhile, has identification and a note on who to contact, etc. There's no abandonment.

 

It would be better for the manager to take the postition like the one in the email and use his opinion that the cache detrimentally effects the environment in his park and that's why his removing it. That argument at least has legs and it becomes his professional judgement. Tthat would be hard to argue against. But abandonment? There wasn't any.

[+bons]

Frankly, in this case, I'd rather lobby for a change or exemption in the law.  It may not have the drama you're looking for, but it's probably more practical.

I dunno. Sending a public official an e-mail that starts with "You're a moron." is probably likely to have a lot of drama attached. And unfortunately there are geocachers out there who think that's the proper way to deal with a perceived problem.

 

----------

 

As for abandonment, that's way too easy to prove. All the land manager has to do is confiscate the cache and wait for someone to claim it. If the cache was placed by someone unwilling to talk with the land manager in advance, they're probably not likely to go to the land manager and ask if they've seen the cache. And if no one claims it, they've got a good argument for abandonment.

[+Sparky-Watts]

I dunno. Sending a public official an e-mail that starts with "You're a moron." is probably likely to have a lot of drama attached.

I agree. It should start with "Mr. Moron".

[+woodsters]

You're right about the tent. Obviously someone abandoned it if they didn't return. But a cache is different. It's placed with the intention of staying there with the placer not returning for awhile, has identification and a note on who to contact, etc. There's no abandonment.

 

It would be better for the manager to take the postition like the one in the email and use his opinion that the cache detrimentally effects the environment in his park and that's why his removing it. That argument at least has legs and it becomes his professional judgement. Tthat would be hard to argue against. But abandonment? There wasn't any.

It will depend on the land manager. Some are just going to be easier to deal with than others. Although the intent of a cache is not to be abandoned, they don't know that and don't have any knowledge of how things would work or when we wil lreturn. If they don't want it there, they will simply say you can not leave property overnight or something to that effect. Actually if there is no rule/law against it and they tell you that you can't do it, without giving a reason, what do you do?

[bug and snake]

If they don't want it there, they will simply say you can not leave property overnight or something to that effect. Actually if there is no rule/law against it and they tell you that you can't do it, without giving a reason, what do you do?

Probably you will have to remove it even if only for a while. I hate to throw another word into the pot here but what we have here is a 'ruling' and if we do not go along with it then the chances are that the manager will have it removed.

Todays 'ruling' becomes tomorows 'rule'.....

[+nincehelser]

I dunno. Sending a public official an e-mail that starts with "You're a moron." is probably likely to have a lot of drama attached. And unfortunately there are geocachers out there who think that's the proper way to deal with a perceived problem.

I call them as I see them.

 

I'm beside myself with laughter! I'm a native Nebraskan, and I can't say I've ever heard of you as a public official or political figure. You're killing me, Ken! Talk about drama!

 

George

[+bons]

I'm sorry George, were we talking about you?

 

More importantly are you saying that you use geocaching.com services to send out insulting e-mails to fellow members?

 

And unless I"m not mistaken, you just called me a moron in a public forum. I think that qualifies as a personal insult in public. I could have sworn you said you never would do that. I also thought that was against forum policy. Oh well, your behave towards other members of this forum isn't my problem. I'll let someone else deal with it.

 

Anyway, back to topic.

 

Actually if there is no rule/law against it and they tell you that you can't do it, without giving a reason, what do you do?

 

1) You can go up the chain, either by e-mail, mail, phone, or in person depending on the results you want, although scheduling an appointment before showing up in person is usually a good idea.

 

or 2) You can perform an act of civil disobedience, making sure the cache is well labeled and inform the land manager that you're doing just that and if they want to make it a matter for the courts, you're willing to do just that. Just make sure you have a lawyer ready to take the case.

 

I would like to think that geocaching can avoid #2, but people have already gone to court. I also think that #1 is much more likely to get results simply because I seriously doubt that "Man chains himself to cache" is going to get much serious media play and without the "chaining" part it's definately page 6 material.

 

or 3) Protest. A bunch of people at a national park during a major holiday with signs that say "Why are we banned from public lands" could get some decent media attention or at least get the people up the chain who are ignoring you to quit ignoring you and listen. Once again, like #2, this is a bit antagonistic and probably not the smoothest way to start change, but it's an option when diplomacy has failed.

[+nincehelser]

I'm not concerned. I'm not the "Public Official" making threats.

 

Get real.

 

George

[+seneca]

Actually if there is no rule/law against it and they tell you that you can't do it, without giving a reason, what do you do?

Woodsters, you have nailed it. That is the question that Geoacachers should be asking. Like Bons said, the answer is likely a combination of diplomacy and civil disobedience (and civil disobedience does not necessarily mean breaking a bad law - it can mean simply doing what you are lawfully entitled to do, notwithstanding that a public official is telling you not to).

 

Geocaching is lawful. Believe it. If we don't believe that, then as a law abiding citizens, we should all stop now.

 

Getting back to the issue of permission: Public officials often have the authority not to enforce particular laws, but they rarely have the authority to "permit" you to break a law. If leaving a cache in a park was contrary to some lawful regulation prohibiting "abandoning property" or "littering", then it would be useless to ask for "permission" because the park authority would not be able to give it.

[+bons]

At this point, due to repeated harassing e-mails from a participant in this read, I'm stepping out of this discussion and re-considering if I should continue to participate in these forums. I've attempted to work things out with this person off-line but they stated two e-mail messages ago that all future communication from will will be blocked at their mail server. I simply cannot resolve something privately with someone who is blocking my messages while sending me insults via e-mail.

 

I will continue to be a paying member of geocaching.com and will continue to cache, log caches online, and post to the nebraska yahoo forums, but I'm tired of receiving insulting e-mails simply because I disagree with what one person here says. I find I can no longer be an objective productive member of this forum as a result and because of that I'm taking a break before something that should have been handled privately becomes a public problem.

[+Sparky-Watts]

At this point, due to repeated harassing e-mails from a participant in this read, I'm stepping out of this discussion and re-considering if I should continue to participate in these forums. I've attempted to work things out with this person off-line but they stated two e-mail messages ago that all future communication from will will be blocked at their mail server. I simply cannot resolve something privately with someone who is blocking my messages while sending me insults via e-mail.

 

I will continue to be a paying member of geocaching.com and will continue to cache, log caches online, and post to the nebraska yahoo forums, but I'm tired of receiving insulting e-mails simply because I disagree with what one person here says. I find I can no longer be an objective productive member of this forum as a result and because of that I'm taking a break before something that should have been handled privately becomes a public problem.

That's too bad.....I was enjoying your posts, and glad to see arguments on both sides come up. It's a shame that one person can bring that much pressure on another. But, I suppose if it were me, I don't care one way or the other whether I visit the forums (at least not the "controversial" ones). I do get a lot of good information from the help forums and such.

[ju66l3r]

At this point, due to repeated harassing e-mails from a participant in this read, I'm stepping out of this discussion and re-considering if I should continue to participate in these forums. I've attempted to work things out with this person off-line but they stated two e-mail messages ago that all future communication from will will be blocked at their mail server. I simply cannot resolve something privately with someone who is blocking my messages while sending me insults via e-mail.

Um, no offense meant, but don't be dumb. If they are using the GC.com systems (PM or e-mail link in your profile) to harass you, then all you need to do is report it to Groundspeak and it will stop. Nobody in these forums (by my guess) is so bent on jerking with you that they would jeopardize all of their finds/records/whatever by pushing it beyond the account terminate point and since that is one of the repercussions of abusing the e-mail system here, they will stop once they have been reported.

 

There's no reason to not use the forums just because there is someone being a jerk. Remember, do it for the children, because if you stop using the forums, then the terrorists have already won.

 

Hope that helps.

[+nincehelser]

At this point, due to repeated harassing e-mails from a participant in this read, I'm stepping out of this discussion and re-considering if I should continue to participate in these forums. I've attempted to work things out with this person off-line but they stated two e-mail messages ago that all future communication from will will be blocked at their mail server. I simply cannot resolve something privately with someone who is blocking my messages while sending me insults via e-mail.

 

I will continue to be a paying member of geocaching.com and will continue to cache, log caches online, and post to the nebraska yahoo forums, but I'm tired of receiving insulting e-mails simply because I disagree with what one person here says. I find I can no longer be an objective productive member of this forum as a result and because of that I'm taking a break before something that should have been handled privately becomes a public problem.

I blocked you at my server because I want no further mail from you. Your e-mails got old. I told you I was going to block you. I just checked my mail server logs and it appears that you're still trying to get through, though.

 

So now you try to take it public. My, my.

 

I tried to take it private, but it didn't work.

 

George

Edited December 7, 2003 by nincehelser

[+seneca]

At this point, due to repeated harassing e-mails from a participant in this read, I'm stepping out of this discussion and re-considering if I should continue to participate in these forums.

Bons, don't go. I (and others I am sure) have appreciated your contribution to this discussion. You are the perfect forum poster - not afraid to take a controversial position, while at the same time knowing how to carry on a polite and civil discussion. Here's a quote I have taken from one of your posts:

 

" It's something for sheep to be scared of but no one who values freedom should be cowed into obeying an unjust law."

 

Ditto goes for being cowed into leaving a forum discussion because of the bullying tactics of one person. Rethink it Bons - I don't think leaving is your style.

 

I think the appropriate measure would be to report to TPTB the perpetrator of the behaviour, particularly any inappropriate private e-mails.

[jimmy689]

"as for caches on private lands" did you actually ask him if it was allright to place a cache on private lands. these two letters from some park official sound like they just got done reading a letter from someone that was very anti-geocaching.maybe im reading it wrong. idont know.

I almost wish I didn't post those e-mails. I thought that I was proving that in some cases land managers can be level headed and logical about geocaching and not all of them are against us. How can this possibly be seen as antigeocaching? I contacted the park system to see if yet another activity I enjoy in New Jersey(ie; off road motorcycling) will be all but banned in the near future. The information I got was encouraging so I thought I would share it.

I posted my original e-mail on the first page of this thread. Please read it before you pass judgement on me.

Edited December 7, 2003 by jimmy689

[+woodsters]

At this point, due to repeated harassing e-mails from a participant in this read, I'm stepping out of this discussion and re-considering if I should continue to participate in these forums. I've attempted to work things out with this person off-line but they stated two e-mail messages ago that all future communication from will will be blocked at their mail server. I simply cannot resolve something privately with someone who is blocking my messages while sending me insults via e-mail.

Bons do what I did when it happened to me. Post a reply in the forums. It's not looked upon as good forum etiquette, but the person crosses the line when doing that. It happened to me once before here. I posted their email to me and replied to it in pieces. Didn't hear anything else after that...

[+woodsters]

I contacted the park system to see if yet another activity I enjoy in New Jersey(ie; off road motorcycling) will be all but banned in the near future.

Reminds me of when my 13 yr old is going to ask to do something or get something sometimes. He starts off with "I know you're probably going to say no, but..." . He lost his battle right then because it triggers thoughts in my head about I shouldn't allow it already before he even says it. When if he would of said can I do so and so. I might of said ok. The other way he is feeding me an answer to his question already.

[+nincehelser]

Reminds me of when my 13 yr old is going to ask to do something or get something sometimes. He starts off with "I know you're probably going to say no, but..." . He lost his battle right then because it triggers thoughts in my head about I shouldn't allow it already before he even says it. When if he would of said can I do so and so. I might of said ok. The other way he is feeding me an answer to his question already.

I'm no salesman, but I've heard of a trick where they try to get "yes" a few times to in order to condition you into a positive response. Often it's sickeningly blatent and defeats the purpose, but done well it should be quite effective.

 

An example is to get someone to say "Toast in the toaster" three times fast. Then quickly ask them what you put in a toaster.

 

They'll often respond with the pre-conditioned, but incorrect, "toast", instead of "bread".

 

There's another one where you pre-condition the target to answer with a word that ends with "op". Then you ask them what to do at a green light.

 

Then there's always the "These are not the droids you're looking for" trick

 

George

Edited December 7, 2003 by nincehelser

[+Bloencustoms]

Before the discussion got "personal", seneca made a good point.

If leaving a cache in a park was contrary to some lawful regulation prohibiting "abandoning property" or "littering", then it would be useless to ask for "permission" because the park authority would not be able to give it.

Geocaching is not a crime.

[+nincehelser]

Geocaching is not a crime.

That sounds like a new geocaching t-shirt design opportunity!

 

Though, on second thought, it may pre-condition people to think there is something wrong with it.

 

It may not be the thing to wear when you go in to speak to a land manager.

 

George

[+Bloencustoms]

Hehe, you bet it wouldn't. My thinking is that the act of asking at all might have a similar effect.

[+nincehelser]

Hehe, you bet it wouldn't. My thinking is that the act of asking at all might have a similar effect.

Perhaps, but I'm not going there again!

 

Seriously, in the same vein it might be a good idea to wear something that promotes the positive side, like CITO, when going to see the manager. It sure wouldn't hurt.

 

Of course, if you're really bent on getting arrested, I guess the "not a crime" shirt would be appropriate.

 

George

[jimmy689]

I contacted the park system to see if yet another activity I enjoy in New Jersey(ie; off road motorcycling) will be all but banned in the near future.

Reminds me of when my 13 yr old is going to ask to do something or get something sometimes. He starts off with "I know you're probably going to say no, but..." . He lost his battle right then because it triggers thoughts in my head about I shouldn't allow it already before he even says it. When if he would of said can I do so and so. I might of said ok. The other way he is feeding me an answer to his question already.

Did you even read my original e-mail to the parks? I f you did, apparently you thought it was a falsehood. Contact the parks directly if you think I was lying. I gave you the address and phone numbers. Take the next step and verify what I am saying! Otherwise, stop spouting off. It offends me.

[+Sparky-Watts]

I contacted the park system to see if yet another activity I enjoy in New Jersey(ie; off road motorcycling) will be all but banned in the near future.

Reminds me of when my 13 yr old is going to ask to do something or get something sometimes. He starts off with "I know you're probably going to say no, but..." . He lost his battle right then because it triggers thoughts in my head about I shouldn't allow it already before he even says it. When if he would of said can I do so and so. I might of said ok. The other way he is feeding me an answer to his question already.

Did you even read my original e-mail to the parks? I f you did, apparently you thought it was a falsehood. Contact the parks directly if you think I was lying. I gave you the address and phone numbers. Take the next step and verify what I am saying! Otherwise, stop spouting off. It offends me.

Are you being serious here? I honestly didn't see anyone in that post "spouting off", but maybe I misread something.

[+nincehelser]

Everyone take deep breath.......

 

Jimmy, for what it's worth, I didn't see anything wrong with your note, and believe it was productive.

 

The rest of this is note directed to everyone in general.

 

I think that we're all getting a little punchy, and some of the things we're feeling and saying are not what would we typically express in calmer times. Be it fatigue, confusion, or just plain getting burned out, I don't know, but it's too hot in here.

 

In other words, we're all getting a little too carried away, and we all need to stand down and re-integrate ourselves. I think everyone here wants to see geocaching succeed in the long run, and we should keep that in mind, and not get huffy with each other over mis-understandings and minor differences.

 

I'm as guilty as anyone, and I pledge to strive for the sentiments I preach.

 

Can we all come in with fresh minds in the morning?

 

George

[+seneca]

Can we all come in with fresh minds in the morning?

So long as you promise to hold your deep breath until then.

(Just kidding)

 

Well said, and indeed needed. I sincerely think the issues raised in this thread and others like it are important, and the way we approach them now will impact on geocaching in the future.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Land manager, Land manager, land manager...

Sheesh!

Land managers do not make the regulations. They interpret them for the purposes of enforcement. They have the authority to arrest and/or cite to court. No more, no less. The interpretation of the regulations is the duty of the court. The making of the regulations is the province of the beaurocrats and ultimately the legislature.

 

Leaving these things to the interpretation of the land managers is ridiculous. We need to pursue a proper reading of the law.

 

The proper way to do this is to ask the Attorney General's office for an opinion. The Attorney General's opinion is of only slight lower weight than a court decision.

 

This is something GC.Com should do.

 

Of course, putting up a test case can accomplish the same thing. That should come soon in the natural course of things. If it does not, the question will become "who is willing to bell the cat?".

 

If the AG's opinion or court decision is not to our liking then we should proceed to petition our representatives.

 

Leaving these things open to different interpretations by different land managers can only result in total frustration for all.

[Grimmy]

I have had some dealing with access and legalities of the "use" and how the area is managed.

 

First thing to point out that will help explain the apithetic return that didn't take the time to finding out what GeoCaching is. If you used a generic e-mail like Info@fs.gov There is no telling who is going to answer that. There is the very strong possibility that your going to get a droan. It may not even be a Office droan in the same state that ever set foot in the area your asking about. They may well be at the head office in Atlanta.

 

The point is take the time to Find the person/s who work that park and send any questions directly to them.

 

Now my next point is it's PUBLIC property. As long as this is not causing damage to sensetive areas there is no reason that it should be banned. It should be embraced because it brings visitors and it may generate revenue in the form of entry and parking fee's. Those dollars usualy go directly into that area.

 

There is a BIG problem right now with the FS, BLM and parks service. It has been forgotten that these are public property. Many FS,BLM and Park personel Are affilited with GAG's that bring endless garbage lawsuits that cost tax payers money and lock the public out of public lands.

 

While I have no problem with areas being protected that are sensative, a city park is not one of them. Stay out of the flower beds and don't disturb others and there should be no problem. Where there is concern with human impact needs to be and is listed.

 

They have no right in telling you you can't enjoy the park/area in the way that you chose as long as it's not bothering others, altering the property or against the law needs to be fired. GO OVER THEIR HEAD.

 

I'm a firm believer in "What they do not know does not hurt them

 

Do you ask permission to play catch in the park? Do you ask permission to jog in the park? Why do you need permission to play hide and seak? Don't bring attention to yourself. If your asked....Explain the game and show them a cache and what it's about. Point out your just there having some fun at the park with others. They give you anyproblems. Go over their head and write your reps and tell them that your being discriminated against.

 

Hell anybody can write a bill and submit it to be a law. How the heck do you think we got the laws that actually have some common sense behind them? It sure wasn't the goof ball butt smootcher we elected I can guarantee that. Half the stuff that has a reps name on it they don't even know about it. They are on a commity that handles bills of that type so their name got put on it.

 

Most things they don't get much info on till about 10- minutes-2 hours before they are supose to vote on it. Their assistant fills them in on it and most of the time makes a recomendation as to how they should vote. That recomendation may be a reflection of letters from voters on that bill and what they think of it.

 

Serious that's how our Government works. I had a Rep tell me that when the local clubs fought a bill in GA that would have effected some auto hobbiests. We were hammering the guy who's name was on it with letters and if we had not done that he would have not know what had his name on it till time to present it to the others and vote or table it. Turns out some group that doesn't like people to be individuals and express that in what they drive that thinks everybody should be driving Saturns (No offense to Saturn drivers ment) submitted the bill.

 

Back to the cache. If this ever made it to court as long as you were being sensetive to your surounding it will probably get thrown out of court. Think about it and what they would attempt to charge you with.

 

Judge: What were you doing?

Cacher: playing Hi Tech hide and seak and enjoying a public park.

 

Judge to FS/BLM/PAR person that brought charge: what did they do wrong?

 

"They were hiding things to be found by others"....that would go over well with a judge. That's the point of hide and seak.

 

Tresspassing? Uhhh it's a public park/property, you own just as much of it as any other US Citizen and you have as much of rite to be there as anybody else that is using the area as long as your not bothering others.

 

Littering by leaving a cache? Come on the point is to find it. That means it's hidden from veiw and only those playing will ever know it's there. Who is it hurting?

 

There is nothing you can be charged with that would really stick as long as it's in appropriate areas. If it's a heavy used area then that point is mute. Don't step on the horney toad and wear a hat so the spotted owl doesn't crap on your head.

 

Ohh for the record....Most Parks/FS/BLM people have no enforcement ability. They have a acutal enforcement groups that are for the most part Police. Most parks people cannot detain you. How do I know? Because some of the other goups I am alingned with that volenteer to maintain a couple public parks have tried to get enforcement in those parks to try to curb some illlegal dumping, vandalisim and trail blazing. The "Enforcement" people were bassed 1-2 hours away depending on who was on duty. The local ranger point blank told us he has no enforcement autorization. To get the enforcement to make that drive takes a murder. They are useless.

 

In the one place we do see enforcement all they do is hassle people to write tickets to generate revenue. The park is in one state but it borders another. The FS people from the bordered state sets check points at the state line and hassle people as they attempt to cross the state line into the park.

 

Only time we see the FS people from the state the park is in is when somebody is hurt or has rolled a vehicle on the main road. Serious! 5 weekends in a row theifs broke into the day use pay boxs and cleaned them out. Understand that this took a cutting torch to do because the pay box was a 8 inch diameter pipe set into a concrete footer. They could't be bothered to be out there trying to catch these knuckle heads. This area is a $5 a day parking and see's a hundred or more people a day on the weekends and sometimes more if there is a large event.

 

Please excuse the spelling and gramerical errors.

Edited December 8, 2003 by Grimmy

[+Sparky-Watts]

OK, this gets my vote for best post yet! Excellent!

[ju66l3r]

It doesn't get mine. There are factual posts in this and other threads here in the forums that have presented counter-arguments to 3/4 of what was said here (that was on topic). None of those facts have been considered in Grimmy's statements (in fact some have been simply "poo-poo'd" and avoided).

 

If we're to arrive at any conclusions we can't ignore facts that other's have posted and retread the same 10 meters over and over again. Playing catch? "PUBLIC property"? These tired comments have already been run out and been shot down as being overly idealistic (in terms of "public" lands) and unrelated (in terms of the difference between playing catch or leaving behind property).

 

In fact, solutions for these discrepencies in use have been discussed all over these threads (permits, listing cache placement with amenable managers, etc) and so rather than going back and trodding out all of the same things that I've commented on in the past for everything (other than the off-topic pseudo-trial-law comments), I only hope to direct Grimmy (and anyone of like mind) to find previous posts where the actual definition of litter from a state statute (NC) is posted and other similar posts.

 

You should not choose to ignore that our hobby *does* fall in line with problematic general laws such as "littering" or "abandonment of personal property" and can be treated as such. Law enforcement (when they have the jurisdiction) *CAN* choose to apply their interpretation of any law they want to what you have done. Their interpretation is *not* the law and is *not* going to necessarily get you a criminal trial even, but who wants the hassle of even getting to the stage of fighting the DA just to determine that you were right? Certainly not the majority of us and it wouldn't help the appearance of this hobby at all to be that belligerent about it (like test cases and so on) either.

 

I think the best results from our discussions on these topics (before people start reiterating the same tired illogical premises and so on) is that people like Bloencustoms and Jimmy have gone through the steps to contact their local manager(s) and are letting us know how it's going (all positive so far if somewhat lengthy in terms of waiting being the only negative). Others have given us the tools (like the powerpoint presentation) to present ourselves in a good and well-informed (and informative) light and that in the end, not only will we be acceptable to nearly every land manager, we'll also be able to count on them for keeping an eye on our caches as well (imagine having them check it every few days as they walk the trails!).

 

Forcing someone to accept your actions because they *have* to will only make them not want to be helpful. Gaining their friendship in these matters will only serve to help us in the end.

[+geospotter]

You know, we could put an end to this very easily. Does anyone know a judge we could ask?

 

BTW, Juggler, great post.

[+Sparky-Watts]

Or, we could just close the thread and quit re-hashing the same things over and over and over and over, ad nauseum.

[ju66l3r]

Or, we could just close the thread and quit re-hashing the same things over and over and over and over, ad nauseum.

That wouldn't be prudent. I added a new quote to my sig that might be pertinent.

 

I think this topic is one of preeminent importance. To kill the current topic for discussing it would be premature. We can only remind others to remain on the forefront of the discussion and keep things moving forward instead of repeating the past. When dealing with these policies, the last thing we want to be is passive...nor pugilistic. It is the moderate path that presents the prime prize. In the end, if we are positive, we shall prevail.

 

 

This response brought to you by the letter "K".

[+Sparky-Watts]

Yes, that was my point, but I just didn't state it as well as you did. Let's try to post something new on the subject and quit stating what has already been said. Move it forward, not back and forth, side to side.

 

This is the problem I've had with this (and many other web forums), everyone has to say basically the same thing in their own words, instead of putting new thoughts into a discussion. When you have 100 people giving their own version of the original post and no new information, the thread gets to be too strung out and boring.

 

Thanks for putting my thoughts into better words, juggler.

[+woodsters]

Did you even read my original e-mail to the parks? I f you did, apparently you thought it was a falsehood. Contact the parks directly if you think I was lying. I gave you the address and phone numbers. Take the next step and verify what I am saying! Otherwise, stop spouting off. It offends me.

Me disagreeing with you offends you? Me saying that it doesn't sound right or is not the way I would of handled it offends you?

 

I read your email to the parks. The email you posted in which you said you sent does not ask about adverse environmental damage or private land. However in one of the response emails in which you posted, they were talked about these issues as if they were answering questions. While I believe that in the ideal world that a relationshiop between cachers and land managers should be of high importance to better the acceptance of the sport, I do believe that how you ask things are important as to what you are asking. If you are simply seeking policies on geocaching, then ask if they have any policies on geocaching. Stating that there is some controversy or other type of comments that are negative to the sport is the smae thing that my 13 yr old does whne tyring to get something out of me. He loses his battle right then.

 

If indeed those were the actual replies in which you got from the actual email you posted and they just so happened to mention those things out of the blue, then I will offer an "attaboy" to you.

[+seneca]

You should not choose to ignore that our hobby *does* fall in line with problematic general laws such as "littering" or "abandonment of personal property" and can be treated as such.  Law enforcement (when they have the jurisdiction) *CAN* choose to apply their interpretation of any law they want to what you have done.  Their interpretation is *not* the law and is *not* going to necessarily get you a criminal trial even, but who wants the hassle of even getting to the stage of fighting the DA just to determine that you were right?  Certainly not the majority of us and it wouldn't help the appearance of this hobby at all to be that belligerent about it (like test cases and so on) either.

Like the land manager, as a free agent I can also choose to interpret a law anyway I feel like and act accordingly. However, if I am wrong, there will be consequences. The same applies to the land manager who oversteps his authority (unless we choose to act like bleating sheep).

 

I do not disagree with what you have said, and the negative consequences of not having land managers onside from the beginning, even if they are wrong. But having a clear understanding whether or not what you are doing is lawful, is very important and will definitely impact on the way that one deals with the local authorities.

 

Communications with a land authority that presupposes that permission is legally required, or that drips with uncertainty as to whether or not what you are doing is lawful, is in my opinion a very very weak way to deal with authorities when trying to get them to develop a geocaching policy. A much better approach would be one where we are confident that what we are doing is lawful, and allowed without specific permision, and that we are approaching the land manager in a manner of mutual respect, to ensure: that our members, and the land manager feel comfortable with geocaching; that there are no issues that need to be addressed; and, that the activities of our members do not cause any damage to the land. I have seen some great examples posted to these forums where such an approach has been successful.

 

I am afraid that a number of our members, do not feel confident that what they are doing is completely legal, and requires no need for permission (or apology). I am hopeful that that attitude does not become widespread among us, as it will be very damaging to our sport.

[ju66l3r]

A much better approach would be one where we are confident that what we are doing is lawful, and allowed without specific permision, and that we are approaching the land manager in a manner of mutual respect, to ensure: that our members, and the land manager feel comfortable with geocaching; that there are no issues that need to be addressed; and, that the activities of our members do not cause any damage to the land. I have seen some great examples posted to these forums where such an approach has been successful.

Agreed. In fact, in other cases, I have often been known to present my case with such authority and confidence that it has been well-accepted by my peers...even though the underlying premises were not necessarily known to be true by me (hey, they *sounded* good!).

 

The powerpoint presentation goes a long way towards giving that sort of authority and I think if there were some sort of "higher-up" that we could get an official statement from on the positive effect of well-organized/thought-out geocaching, then it would also help give us extra strength to any communications with people in positions to make these decisions about their land uses.

 

Do we have any public officials (federal...high state ranked...something like that) that are geocachers or friends of geocachers?

 

Anyone?

[+CO Admin]

Just a gentle reminder.

 

Everyone play nice. Its a big sandbox

[Grimmy]

ju66l3r

Point taken and yes you are correct, it is not cut and dry.

 

I'm actually pretty hot under the collar about anti access junk. I didn't think I was going to get involved in any of it with Geocaching. In fact I was looking for something else to do to get away from this sort of junk for a while.

 

I have about 6 years of dealings with the FS and working on stuff like the 10 year revision for the Chattahoochee-Oconee forests in GA. I have been involved in battles with the anti Access groups that are the primary group that is going to cause you issue. I also have some dealings with Nantahala in sw NC. I'm the past land use person for the 4x4 club I am a member of. My club is very involved in things like Adopt a Trail program. We are the primary group that maintains Beasley Knob OHV and we help out with several other areas including Tellico in NC.

 

The FS/BLM/Parks service has evolved and not for the better. Their original intent was to manage the resources for the betterment of the US and to provide recreactional oprotunites to the American public. Now there is a good many FS people that work towards just the oposite goal and limit access and are involved with groups that bring frivolus lawsuits against the FS/BLM and local governments that cost this country billions of dollars each year and have put millions of Americans out of jobs and caused a lot of our money to go out of the country to places that the land is available and they are welcomed buy the governments instead of taxed out and hassled by special interst groups.

 

As a very large example, These are the people to thank for the LACK of resource managment in places such as California and the result manifests itself in the fires they have had. It is normal for the forest to burn however if man wasn't here they would burn much more often and never get to the point of having that much fuel to get that far out of hand. Man will not let the "Normal" fires happen because of the threat to human life and property. Well that material is still there and needs regular controled burns and harvesting of overgrown areas that suscumbe to disease and insect infestation to keep exactly what just happend in CA from happening. But cutting down a tree even if it's dying or overgrown is fought tooth and nail by the GAG's.

 

Sorry but I am 10 times the steward of the land as 99% of the people involved in these groups. I give my time, energy, resources and hard earned dollars to keep the areas I use open.

 

What you are atempting to do and the way your are approching it is admiral and of sound reasoning. Unfortunatly the government entity your dealing with does not subscribe to the same principles of common sense and ability to come to a reasonable middle ground. As I pointed out, Many of our civil employees work against access and atempt to limit use.

 

Good luck and you have my suport 100%. Get some letter campaigns going to hammer on our elected officials and get some concideration for use of OUR forests at a federal level. That will blanket all forests and limit the amount of little people you have to deal with. Take note at the sneaky way the GAGs have managed to slide things under everybody's noses before they relized what was happening. Make sure peopl understand the "Not going to happen here" people relize that it is going to happen here and they will get the shaft as a result if they don't show suport by showing up and contacting their appointed government representatatives.

 

When dealing with the and elected officials, be sure to point out the money your spending. Politicians like money being spent and improving the local economy of their area. If the people that live in the areas they represent our happy they get to keep thier jobs. Money makes people happy. Use examples of your spending in areas that you normaly would not visit and wouldn't be able spend if locked out. Stuff like Fuel, meals, parking fee's do make a big impact on local economy's.

 

Off my Soap Box.

 

Grimmy

[ju66l3r]

I have been reading into other access groups sites (4x4 among them) and I can certainly see where you are coming from. I can also understand that Federal administration by its nature (ironic) can be too far abstracted from the actual lands managed. This is why some have discussed the issue of setting up policy that allows local land managers to determine specific permission to their lands for geocaching (what upper-administrator *wouldn't* jump at the chance to pass the buck?). In this way, those closest to the issues for a particular NWR or NF would be the one available to work with on cache placement issues and permit discussions.

 

But that is all Federal issues (a big hunk in and of itself).

 

One of the points of this *particular* topic (as opposed to the pinned FWS topic) was also to talk anbout state/local park permission and working with a city land manager who probably lives next door to you and rides the same subway and so forth. These people from my experience are not quite as removed and responsive to the same legal elements as the Federal administrators, but I think permission with them is just as important since they are also more likely to be directly involved with each park we place our items into.

 

They would also be the first people I'd want to point to as we might be needing to take our case to higher/larger administrations (i.e. "it's good for all of the cities, why not the state?"...."it's good for all of the states, why not the nation?".

[Grimmy]

Hmmmm Good idea and does leave someone over their head if your not getting anywhere.

 

How about a data base of places that approved and the contact for that area that people could print off. Present that to any Park/FS/ BLM person you approch for permission. It would give them somebody to contact that does the same job as they do and can share first hand knowledge on their level.

[+Bloencustoms]

I suppose it all boils down to this. Some people believe permission is required no matter what, and others believe that a lack of prohibition implies permission.

 

On either side of the debate, in order for your principles to be valid, they must be applicable to permission for any activity, not just geocaching.

 

If we ask permission to cache but not to do other activities that are neither prohibited, nor endorsed, then we are hypocrites.

 

Likewise, if we do not ask permission to cache and ask permission to do other activities that are neither prohibited, nor endorsed we are again hypocrites.

[+nincehelser]

I'm actually seeing four different view points, which makes things more difficult. Some of us seem to have some combination of these points.

 

A: Not asking permission is a philosophical expression of freedom

 

B: Not asking permission is a pragmatic tactic to keep a caches from being removed or denied

 

C: Asking permission is a pragmatic tactic to keep caches from being being banned or removed

 

D: Asking permission is a philosophical expression of the politeness and conforming to established rules and policies

 

George

Edited December 9, 2003 by nincehelser