One More Time

[Jomarac5]

Bloencustoms wrote:

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.

There's another group; those who believe that the lack of prohibition does not necessarily imply permission but that there are some things that shouldn't require permission.

 

Hiking, walking, caching, and other non-invasive human powered activities on public land (excluding ecologically sensitive areas) should not require permission or fees. As a resident and tax payer of our respective countries, it is *our* public land and public means you and me.

 

*****

Geo 97R 67D

[+woodsters]

Yes there are those who believe they shouldn't ask permission to place a cache. But those that would rather know it's ok in the first place and that their cache is not going to be confiscated/removed or that they may run a chance into a threat of being prosecuted (whether valid or not), should not be frowned upon. Many people take great pride in their caches and placing them. Many spend a good bit of money in them as well.

[greenpeace liberalism on]

In my opinion, I would rather know ahead of time that it's going to be accepted there. We have to be realistic. We are not talking about a common activity or sport that is recognized. We are talking about something that in fact could cause harm. We can say it doesn't do any more harm than other things. While that may be true, it's an additional thing and we aren't talking of doing the exact same thing as other activities. It does about 80% of the same thing as hiking for the most part. Then the rest of the time is bushwacking going off trail and leaving things. I'm sure there are are countless reasons why it would not be wanted. Endangering wildlife, vegetation, and people are some immediate things. Wildlife could be harmed because an animals home is torn up. Leaving foreign objects there could cause problems for animals too. AS we know, food is not supposed to put in caches, but neither are knives and otehr prohibited items, but they are. If someone leaves something that has a smell(not necessarily that humans can smell) that attracts an animal, what if the animal tries to eat something that is toxic to them or chokes them. Then there is vegetation. We don't like people trampling through or flower beds. People put scarecrows in gardens to keep out birds, and there are many other ways people try to keep animals and people away from their vegetation. The forest is a flower bed, the best way put. They don't want people trampling things down. There's also possible endangeered vegetation. Some may say, yeah but animals make tracks as well. Possibly, but it's normal. Just as in your flower bed, there are insects. But a person walking through it is not normal. Then there are people. Peoples' safety is what comes to mind to me, being ex Law Enforcement. I imagine that the land managers may be the best in knowing what's there on the land and what is possibly dangerous. There may be signs and then there may not be signs. Just as if Joe Blow places a cache in the middle of the woods and he entered from one direction. Then Suzy Q comes to find the cache and enters from a different direction. There may be some sort of dnager nearby that Joe Blow didn't know about or see. Perhaps a big hole, quicksand, etc. Ther ecould be many different instances. There's also the chance of people hurting other people. The land managers may be having a problem wiht poachers, drug dealers and etc. They aren't going to put a big sign that says, warning the area has a problem with drug dealers....." . Many people don't know some of hte things that goes on. I remember reading a little magazine that Georgia puts out. In there are some of the calls that Rangers go on. It's kind of like a police blotter. You would be surprised at some of the things that go on. I remember reading about Rangers staking out poachers and illegal hunters and getting shot at. Imagine walking into the middle of something like that or walking up on someone doing something illegal. It oculd happen anytime and anywhere, even while just hiking, walking or biking and not limited to caching. But the thing is, that they can control and advise. They may be able to say, no we don't want the added problem (even though to us it's not a problem). They may suggest different areas...There are many different reasons out there. [greenpeace liberalism off]

 

Now, do I go caching and do other activities outdoors that could cause "damage". Yes. 's normal. Do I place a cache without permission? no and that's my feeling on that.

 

Bottom line is, if you don't want to ask, then don't. If you do then do. No one should feel disgruntled about the other if the other feels and acts in a different manner. People are going to ask. Sometimes it may be for areas that caches are there and may end up causing the othe rcaches to be removed. Nothing you can do about it. Can't be mad at the one who thought it was a good idea to make sure they were going to put their cache in a good place or that they were not going to lose out on their investment.

[+Bloencustoms]

Generally, I tend to /ignore greenpeace liberalism, but I had to respond to one point. There is nothing abnormal about a human animal moving about in the wild. People may have been conditioned to believe it, but it is false. We are every bit the product of this earth that all of the cute furry and feathered animals are. If anyon has ever watched a documentary on apes, or gorillas, you will think twice about which species causes the most trampling when moving about in the wild. Just because we're clothed and shod doesn't make us more damaging that any other animal. Almost every climate in the world is man's natural environment, and we should not disturb our own enjoyment of the wild any more than that of the other species. It's short sighted to believe that man's influence on the earth is not as natural as the earth itself. I'm not suggesting intentionally mowing your way across a field of wildflowers, just relaxing a bit about off trail caches. The chances that you will scare an endangered species are about the same as scaring a predator away from one.

[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 that I posted? I think I wrote it in english. I thought it was worded pretty well. Like I said before, I Did not ask for permission for anything! This forum seems to be frequented by a few close minded and paranoid people who believe any dialog with any authority is wrong. Do you really think that one vague email to two park systems will really bring the hammer of the government down on geocachers? I would also appreciate it if you would stop taking one line out of my post to make a personal slam against me. You don't know me at all so keep your insults to yourself.

[+briansnat]

This forum seems to be frequented by a few close minded and paranoid people who believe any dialog with any authority is wrong.

 

I don't think anybody said it was wrong, but in many cases it is unecessary and could open up a can of worms that had best stayed closed.

[+briansnat]

But a person walking through it is not normal.

 

Huh? People have been walking thorugh the forest for many thousands of years. In fact we've lived there on this continent up until a few hundred years ago. We're as much a part of the environment as the rest of the animals.

 

If someone leaves something that has a smell(not necessarily that humans can smell) that attracts an animal, what if the animal tries to eat something that is toxic to them or chokes them.

 

Woah, then you have one dead chipmunk. Environmental disaster!!! Use ammo boxes if that is a concern.

 

The forest is a flower bed, the best way put.

 

No its not. A flower bed largely filled with annual plants. Trample them and they are gone. The forest is mostly filled with perennials. Trample it and it's back soon. The forest has amazing resilience. Ever see how fast a hiking trail disappears once its closed to hikers? Ever see how quickly the forest reclaims old farms? Those ubiquitious stone walls you pass in the forest are there because that land was once farmland. Furthermore, a flowerbed is a small, concentrated area, while the forest is vast. Very poor analogy.

 

Wildlife could be harmed because an animals home is torn up

 

An animal's home is torn up while geocaching? Where do you get this? How about the animal homes torn up while a bear is foraging for grubs? Let's ban bear from the forest! (as an aside, the overpopulation of deer in my state is more of a threat to our forests than 10,000 geocachers).

 

Then there are people. Peoples' safety is what comes to mind to me, being ex Law Enforcement. I imagine that the land managers may be the best in knowing what's there on the land and what is possibly dangerous. There may be signs and then there may not be signs. Just as if Joe Blow places a cache in the middle of the woods and he entered from one direction. Then Suzy Q comes to find the cache and enters from a different direction. There may be some sort of dnager nearby that Joe Blow didn't know about or see. Perhaps a big hole, quicksand, etc. Ther ecould be many different instances.

 

Yep, this is "greenpeace liberalism" speaking here. Government as a nanny. There are dangers every time you venture outdoors. The dangers of geocaching are no different than those you're exposed to while hiking, photographing wildlife, orienteering and probably a lot less than hunting and mountain biking and many other legit outdoor activities. I don't need the government to hold my hand when I'm in the woods "for my own good".

Edited December 10, 2003 by briansnat

[+woodsters]

jimmy689, no one was insulting you. Just because I don't feel you are correct or that you did something not in the best interest, you should not be insulted. If so, then you will have a rough time here on the boards. I merely pointed out that the replies in which you posted went further than the email you posted that you sent out. My opinion is that you were asking permission in a round about way. You stated that there was controversy about it's legality. You stated you didn't want to get in trouble with the law. So you really are asking, "Is it ok to geocache there". That is asking permission. I used the reference of my son as to what you stated in the email. A better way of getting to do something when you are seeking permission or wanting to know if it's ok, is not to point out the bad things about it.

 

BrianSnat, I posted that as a debate on the issue. Theoretically it's all right...

Edited December 10, 2003 by woodsters

[+Mark 42]

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...

Good summary

 

If geocaching causes you to violate other rules (like if there

is a rule to stay on the trails, for example), it will get noticed.

Otherwise, it wil rarely cause concern to most reasonable authorities

if the even become aware that it is occurring.

 

An item is not Abandoned if the owner leaves a note with instructions

for how to contact him if any questions arise.

 

An item that is carefully placed, and not deliberately discarded is not Litter

 

(You can click the above words for a definition)

Edited December 10, 2003 by Mark 42

[Keystone]

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 that I posted? I think I wrote it in english. I thought it was worded pretty well. Like I said before, I Did not ask for permission for anything! This forum seems to be frequented by a few close minded and paranoid people who believe any dialog with any authority is wrong. Do you really think that one vague email to two park systems will really bring the hammer of the government down on geocachers? I would also appreciate it if you would stop taking one line out of my post to make a personal slam against me. You don't know me at all so keep your insults to yourself.

jimmy689, as others have posted, I don't think the intent is to insult you personally (and if anyone thinks they were, then back off!). It's rather a given in these forums that if you post the text of something, like your e-mail to the park managers, others will pick it apart. Hopefully, by discussing it, we all learn something.

 

Speaking of picking apart words, I found it interesting that you reacted to Woodster's message, and followed up with a statement about "close minded and paranoid people who believe any dialog with any authority is wrong." Woodsters is squarely in the "always get permission" camp - he is just taking issue with some of your words and your approach. He should not engage in a personal attack against you, nor should you engage in personal attacks against others by calling them "close minded and paranoid." Chop apart the arguments, not the persons making them.

 

You have started a useful follow-up topic on the issue of permission. Keep rolling with it and thanks for your contributions to the forums.

 

To everyone else: Play nicely in the sandbox.

[+geospotter]

Mark42,

 

Maybe you missed the post about judges NOT using the dictionary definition of 'litter'? My guess is that they also would not use the dictionary definition of 'abandoned'.

 

They go by the legal definition. Please add links to those.

[+nincehelser]

Point of information.

 

Law is ancient compared to dictionaries.

 

There is no definitive English language dictionary. Noah Webster didn't start his until the late 1700's and the OED, which is probably the most complete work, a hundred years later. And the OED was written in England, not the US.

 

A dictionary entry may lend some degree of authority to an argument, but, unlike Scrabble, it isn't the final word in the courts.

 

George

[+woodsters]

jimmy689, as others have posted, I don't think the intent is to insult you personally (and if anyone thinks they were, then back off!). It's rather a given in these forums that if you post the text of something, like your e-mail to the park managers, others will pick it apart. Hopefully, by discussing it, we all learn something.

 

Speaking of picking apart words, I found it interesting that you reacted to Woodster's message, and followed up with a statement about "close minded and paranoid people who believe any dialog with any authority is wrong." Woodsters is squarely in the "always get permission" camp - he is just taking issue with some of your words and your approach. He should not engage in a personal attack against you, nor should you engage in personal attacks against others by calling them "close minded and paranoid." Chop apart the arguments, not the persons making them.

 

Thank you Keystone

[+mozartman]

eh... never mind.

Edited December 11, 2003 by mozartman

[+Sparky-Watts]

Hooooo, boy.......... (again in this thread as opposed to the other thread you posted the same question in)

[+Mark 42]

Mark42,

 

Maybe you missed the post about judges NOT using the dictionary definition of 'litter'?  My guess is that they also would not use the dictionary definition of 'abandoned'.

 

They go by the legal definition.  Please add links to those.

If you don't know what the legal definition of litter is, why challenge

the dictionary definition? If you want to dispute the definition I found,

go find a link or provide the text of the legal definition.

 

I searched for such a definition, and was not able to find one other

than on an Australian site, which leads me to believe that the courts

are quite likely to be using the dictionary definition. I don't think there

is a legal definition for every word in existence.. sometimes it is considered

self evident, and the dictionary could be presented as evidence. Even if

there were a legal definition, other siurces can be used to challenge

such a definition. From what I have found in the research I've done,

it appears that each court may have its own definition (e.g. Santa Monica

in the link below) and to argue that the dictionary definition is "incorrect"

in a courtroom makes no sense, since there is variation from state

to state and even county to county or city to city. Therefore, in court,

one could present various "legal" definitions, show the variation, and

then posit that Webster's dictionary is (inter)nationally recognized as

authoritative as to meanings of words, and offers better accuracy and

consistancy.

 

I'll ask an attorney friend of mine if he has a legal definition for

litter, but I'm really doing your homework for you:

 

Here is the only link I could find:

 

http://www.santa-monica.org/municode/codem...e_7/48/010.html

 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/recycling/resea.../definition.htm

 

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/litter/litterlaw...ws.htm#expanded

Edited December 11, 2003 by Mark 42

[ju66l3r]

Mark42,

 

Maybe you missed the post about judges NOT using the dictionary definition of 'litter'?  My guess is that they also would not use the dictionary definition of 'abandoned'.

 

They go by the legal definition.  Please add links to those.

If you don't know what the legal definition of litter is, why challenge

the dictionary definition? If you want to dispute the definition I found,

go find a link or provide the text of the legal definition.

I believe geospotter is referring to my post in the "Permissions and Pantywaists" thread on page 6.

 

It refers to this North Carolina (probably better than Australia) website for their legal definition of litter.

 

He wasn't asking you to do his homework, only provide relevant information when it comes to discussing these issues.

[+Mark 42]

My point is that the dictionary definition is valid, and can be brought to court and

admitted as expert opion type evidence.

 

Basically, there really is no such thing as a "Legal Definition", and the burden

of proof falls upon the prosecution. By presenting authoritative definitions

into which a Geocache cannot fit as "litter", you can show that it is not litter.

 

Same holds true for "abandoned".

 

You have to not only know your rights, you have to stand up for them.

 

But if you ask a park ranger if it'd be okay to place a cache, and

he has never been told it's okay, what is the path of least resistance

(and risk) for him... simple: "No, you can't put stuff in the park

and leave it there".

 

Yes, there will occasionally be a reasonable person in authority who says

"Sure, that sounds like a fun way to enjoy YOUR park", but I would

rather just not even mention the cache, and hide it where no one will

even no that it exists, unless he is a Geocacher.

 

And, if someone did accidently find it, and then report it, and they

tried to prosecute me for litterring (after using the voluntarily provided

contact info in the cache), they had better do their homework... because

I can show that it is not litter, and can point to enough evidence that

it is not litter, that they cannot meet the burden of proof.

 

Now, if they use the contact info and ask me to come and remove it,

then I will do so and will find another place that needs a cache where

a cache would be welcomed, but at the same time, probably would

work to get the policy changed.

Edited December 11, 2003 by Mark 42

[+geospotter]

Thanks, Ju66l3r, for your post. I was referring to that thread, but to my post.

 

Here is a portion of that post. Mark42, these quotes are from the JUDGE in this case.

 

County court, County of Adams, State of Colorado Criminal Action No. 00- M-2096.

 

The people of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff, v. Rodney Lyle Scott, Defendant.

 

<snip>

"Many times people are confused, lay people especially, saying, well, it's public property, and I can do what I want with it. But, everyone knows you really can't do that."

<snip>

"It says, "Any person who deposits, throws, or leaves any litter on a public or private property or waterways, commits littering." Littering is a Class 2 petty offense, punishable by a mandatory fine and could be up to a thousand dollars on a second conviction. "

 

"Litter has a legal definition, and the Court is bound by the legal definition, not what someone may think is used in Webster's dictionary or might be used in common conversation. "

<snip>

 

*** End of quotes ***

 

If you can show that the judge was wrong in this case I am sure he would appreciate it. And it ALWAYS comes down to what the judge thinks, not what you or I think.

 

Depending on the legal definition, you and I could be on the same page!

[+nincehelser]

Basically, there really is no such thing as a "Legal Definition", and the burden of proof falls upon the prosecution. By presenting authoritative definitions into which a Geocache cannot fit as "litter", you can show that it is not litter.

Actually, no. In this kind of law, the "burden of proof" isn't quite what it is in say, a murder trial.

 

For example, if a cop says you didn't stop at a stop sign, that's enough for a court to fine you. The burden is actually on you to convice the court that you did stop.

 

Maybe you'll prevail, maybe you won't. It just depends on how good the court thinks your argument is.

 

In a case such as littering, many a judge would shut you down once you start arguing definitions. It depends on the judge and their mood.

 

Frankly, if you did start down the definition road, you might be asked to find "geocaching" in the dictionary. That could be a bit embarassing.

 

George

[+woodsters]

When i nthe Air Force I had to go to court due to a traffic ticket that I wrote someone that wanted to contest it. This was on a military base, but was a County Judge ( can't remember if it was Los Angelese or Kern county though). The ticket was for a non military person who was employed by NASA. Myself and about 4 or 5 other Security Policemen were there that day for contested tickets. The Judge started the day off with telling those who were contesting that they only have to be proven of exceeding the speed limit by 1 mile an hour (these were speeding cases of course) to be considered guilty. No matter if they were charged with 5, 10, 20 or more. If the speed limit was 55 and you were exceeding that, then you are guilty. He gave them a chance to stop their conestions before proceeding on. He told them they could exit and go pay the clerk their fines. If they decided to continue to contest it, then if found guilty they would not only pay the fine, but they would pay court costs as well and there was something else as well but can't remember. All exited the courtroom except one knucklehead who was driving like 90 in a 55 and his defense was that we shouldn't have "unmarked" police cars. Needless to say, he lost. A judge is going to use whatever definition they want to use. Their definition may not agree with yours. But yours doesn't matter unless you can convince them otherwise. On clear cut case like that or "littering" all I can say is good luck. Just in the situation I explained, the judges opinion was that you were guilty at 1 mile an hour over the posted speed limit. I'm sure the peoples opinion was that they were not guilty of going the speeds they went, although they knew they were speeding. And we never wrote for anything less than 10 miles an hour and over. Our radars were tuned and we produced certificates as such. I could agree a couple miles an hour difference in some peoples speedometers and the radar, but not 10.

[+Mark 42]

A lot does have to do with which judge you get, but you can appeal.

 

The burden of proof is still on the prosecution... that's why if you

contest a ticket, and the officer doesn't show, they dismiss your

charges. The level of doubt required to get a not guilty is a bit

higher in civil stuff, but they still have to prove your guilt.

 

A cop can't just come in and say "I said he was speeding, that's

good enough". He has to state what he saw, why he is qualified to

interpret what he saw, and what other information there is (evidence)

and how it was obtained, by whom, and the qualifications of the

observer (a lot of this involves the defendant asking for the info).

 

Technically, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Practiacally though (in real life) you have to prove your

innocence by disputing & discrediting the evidence presented

against you.

 

If asked to define Geocaching, it would not be embarassing at

all. Many terms are not in the dictionary... but that doesn't

mean they don't exist, or that there is something wrong with them.

This also does not make a credible dictionary with over 100 years

of experience any less credible or authoritative as a source

for defining other terminology. If the dictionary definition

supplements and meshes with (refines) the legal definition,

it would be admissable as evindence. If the two definitions

cannot coexist, then you would have a problem.

 

Ultimately, (once again agreeing with you) if a judge decides

you are guilty because... let's say... he hates your flannel shirt,

you are pretty well screwed... but you do have a right to a jury

trial, and to an appeal... it just depends how badly you want to

win, whether for the long term outcome, or just on principle.

 

But in many cases in history, after enough people fight hard

enough based on principle, change actually has occurred,

but seldom very quickly.

Edited December 15, 2003 by Mark 42