More Bad Press

38.2k · December 10, 2003

This appeared recently in the Chicago Tribune. I've sent a letter to the editor to set the record straight and I hope others do, The burying word comes up again for one and the writer obviously wants the story to portray the sport in a negative light as possible (e.g. we're "invading parks").

Forest districts unsettled by new sport of geocaching

By M. Daniel Gibbard

Tribune staff reporter

November 28, 2003

Jon Cunningham and his girlfriend were on a treasure hunt in a DuPage County forest preserve on a rainy Easter last year, when a ranger confiscated their prize: an old ammo box filled with beads and other trinkets.

For the ranger, it was an early brush with "geocachers," a booming fraternity of techno-savvy treasure hunters who use satellite navigation devices as they hike through parks looking for containers full of doodads hidden by other geocachers.

For Cunningham, 54, a freelance photographer from Aurora, the encounter was a rude shock.

"It was obvious that he had been stalking us during our search," Cunningham said. He said the "bad taste" from the incident greatly reduced his interest in the sport.

Such confrontations with the law are rare, but underscore the tensions that have emerged as geocachers increasingly invade public parks.

Technology vs. nature

With more and more people logging on to the geocaching.com Web site and joining the crowds, officials fear the worst: armies of amateur adventurers stomping on flowers and shrubs. Not to mention possibly falling down ravines and getting hurt.

Geocaching policies vary widely. The U.S. Park Service bans it outright, said spokesman Jerry Gaumer. "The bottom line is by geocaching, you are disturbing the resources," he said, adding that unattended boxes hidden in forests could cause terrorism scares.

In the Chicago area, the DuPage County Forest Preserve District heavily regulates the activity, requiring a difficult-to-get permit.

At the other end of the spectrum, forest preserve officials from Lake, Cook and McHenry Counties say they have no policies specifically mentioning geocaching, but warn that other land-use ordinances apply, especially at ecologically sensitive sites.

"You cannot go into areas that we are restoring and put things there for people to find. You can't molest the ground" by digging, said Steve Mayberry, spokesman for the Cook County Forest Preserve District.

Geocaching has only been around for a few years, but there are hundreds of geocachers and easily 1,000 caches listed on the Chicago-area site, chicagogeocaching.com. It's not clear how many people participate nationwide, but there are at least 10,000 geocachers and more than 70,000 caches hidden in 188 countries, according to geocaching.com.

The federal government made it all possible in May 2000 when it stopped interfering with satellite signals to civilian Global Positioning System devices. Two days later, the first cache was hidden--near Portland. Within three days, it had been visited twice.

Using handheld GPS receivers, geocachers travel to coordinates listed on the Web sites. The devices, which sell for about $100 and up, get the hunters into the general area; after that, they rely on clues that given on the Web. The caches contain toys, trinkets, oddities such as ugly ties and, always, a log book for finders to sign.

If a finder keeps an item, he or she is expected to replace it with something else.

To avoid trampling on private property, the caches are nearly always hidden on public land, and that's where governments get involved.

Restrictions vary

DuPage County's policy is among the most restrictive, requiring a geocacher to obtain a special-use permit before placing a cache. That isn't particularly easy, said Forest Preserve District naturalist Dave Andrusyk.

"They'll have to go through channels and have it approved," he said.

Andrusyk would not speculate on how long that might take. He said he thought there were only two sanctioned caches in DuPage preserves.

Kelly Markwell of Plainfield, who says he has found and placed hundreds of caches since March 2001, was the first to get official approval from DuPage. It took almost a year, he said.

Dr. Dan Boyle, a veterinarian from Winfield, added that "DuPage is sticking out like a sore thumb with their position. It's aggravating."

In fact, the rules apparently are aggravating enough that few people follow them: a check of the local geocaching Web site shows plenty of caches hidden in DuPage forest preserves.

Andrusyk defends the process.

"The reason for the [special use] permit is for public safety and for their enjoyment," he said. "We want to make sure these are being put in places that are safe for people and are safe for wildlife."

In Lake County, a forest preserve official said he and others are keeping a close eye on geocaching activities.

"Our rangers monitor the Web sites and go out and look for inappropriate content in the caches" such as pornography or drugs, said Mike Tully, director of maintenance and operations. No such material has been found, he said.

McHenry County asks participants to consult with rangers before placing anything, "so we can ensure caches are put in a safe area and an area not too environmentally sensitive," said Operations Director John Kramer.

DuPage isn't alone in creating strict rules. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources has similar standards in place.

Bob Grosso, superintendent of the park, said that under state rules, requests must be made in advance to his office. Geocaching "is not banned," he said, but "you can't just show up that day, and you have to go through a formal process on each site."

No such requests have come through his office, Grosso said, and it is unclear whether there are any unauthorized caches at Illinois Beach.

Officials concede the caches haven't caused much trouble.

Lt. Rick Haake of the DuPage County Forest Preserve Ranger Police assumes that there are forbidden caches in the woods. But, he said, "We're not putting our people to look at the Web site and trying to find [the caches] and go pick them up. As we come across them, we'll treat them as abandoned property."

Haake and the other officials could not remember a problem with a geocache or a geocacher.

The reason for that appears to be the geocachers themselves.

Many are self-described computer geeks with a passion for nature at least as strong as their love of technology.

Advocates say they carry garbage bags on their searches to clean up other peoples' litter, and this "cache in, trash out" philosophy is repeated like a mantra.

December 10, 2003

At least it ended on a positive note:

Haake and the other officials could not remember a problem with a geocache or a geocacher.

The reason for that appears to be the geocachers themselves.

Many are self-described computer geeks with a passion for nature at least as strong as their love of technology.

Advocates say they carry garbage bags on their searches to clean up other peoples' litter, and this "cache in, trash out" philosophy is repeated like a mantra.

~erik~

December 10, 2003

This article sort of reminds me with an interview I had with my University's magazine on Geocaching. Over the course of the interview I could tell my interviewer knew nothing of Geocaching and really seemed like she didn't want to know. In fear of a misguided and ignorant article popping up I never sent my pictures in to accompany the article and it was never published.

Its almost like they are critical of the game because they don't quite understand how it works and whats going on.

December 10, 2003

"You cannot go into areas that we are restoring and put things there for people to find. You can't molest the ground" by digging, said Steve Mayberry, spokesman for the Cook County Forest Preserve District.

Oh great, now we are considered molesters. I swear Mr Ranger, that spruce looked over 18

December 10, 2003

"You cannot go into areas that we are restoring and put things there for people to find. You can't molest the ground" by digging, said Steve Mayberry, spokesman for the Cook County Forest Preserve District.

Isn't that exactly what they are doing by 'restoring'?

2.5k · December 10, 2003

This happens when geocachers are more concerned with getting their names in the paper, rather than trying to provide the facts that would shed a positive light on geocaching. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Unfortunately in this circumstance, the reporter seems to get the majority of his information from non-geocachers.

We have had discussions on our local group about this subject. I thought it would be a good idea to have some prepared statement or key points prepared, and not agree to an interview unless the reporter promised to mention the positive points of geocaching in his story. At least that way, it would be understood that geocachers don't dig up the ground and try to cache in-trash out, etc.

I cringe at the thought that some day somebody around here will end up on TV. I could only imagine them hamming it up for the camera, believing that their own star will soon appear on Hollywood's walk of fame, and forgetting that they are representing their fellow geocachers. So far we've been lucky, just newspaper articles and some radio exposure, as far as I know.

December 10, 2003

At least it ended on a positive note:
...and this "cache in, trash out" philosophy is repeated like a mantra.

I don't know. "like a mantra" in this context has some negative overtones.

Taken too literally, it sounds like we're brainwashed cultists.

The use of the word "geek" doesn't help much, either.

George

Edited December 10, 2003 by nincehelser

3.8k · December 10, 2003

Brian, would you care to post the letter you sent in reply?

1.2k · December 10, 2003

This is quite the one sided article. I would have to say if most muggles only encounter press like that about Caching tehy aren't going to be to keen on the idea.

2.5k · December 10, 2003

"You cannot go into areas that we are restoring and put things there for people to find. You can't molest the ground" by digging, said Steve Mayberry, spokesman for the Cook County Forest Preserve District.

Isn't that exactly what they are doing by 'restoring'?

Cook County Forest Preserves have lots of problems to worry about besides geocaching.

THE FOREST PRESERVES' DEMOCRATIC FAMILY TREE

The Cook County Forest Preserves are a jewel -- 67,000 acres of trees, lakes and nature. The Cook County Board would not entrust this jewel to just anyone. Over the years, county officials have given most top-paying jobs at the district to politicians and the politically connected. Critics say the clouted keep their jobs while rank-and-file get laid off, leaving no one to clean and protect the forests.

Edited December 10, 2003 by cachew nut

December 10, 2003

Cachew Nut,

Thanks for the link. It's sad. $3-billion budget.

My favorite line --

"...since the Forest Preserve's golf courses were privatized..."

Huh?

December 10, 2003

It's definitely written oddly, but I don't know if I'd say it's all bad press -

' "Our rangers monitor the Web sites and go out and look for inappropriate content in the caches" such as pornography or drugs, said Mike Tully, director of maintenance and operations. No such material has been found, he said. '

*and*

' Haake and the other officials could not remember a problem with a geocache or a geocacher. '

The rangers almost come across as worried about nothing. 'We think geocaching is a problem and we keep looking for things wrong with it, but we haven't found anything yet.'

December 10, 2003

*We* all know that cachers are probably the most respectful visitors to parks, too bad the park administrators sometimes don't.

On a positive note, I recently placed my first cache in a local park and when I called the park supervisor to ask permission he knew about geocaching and was thrilled to "host" a cache that would draw more people to the park. I never even had to use my prepared speech why geocaching was good for the park !

Edited December 10, 2003 by Theseus

2.5k · December 10, 2003

Thanks for the link. It's sad. $3-billion budget.

Actually their budget is $40 million out of the county's $3 billion.

2k · December 10, 2003

I'm still trying to figure out if the article was pro or con?

Sounds like the author was afraid to commit, and did a nice job of straddling the fence.

Please Brian do share your letter, I'd like to read it.

1.3k · December 11, 2003

I was going to quote some of the negatively slanted material in the article and respond to it, but it would be easier to quote the whole thing and edit out the one or two positive statements. :lol: It's incredible how something as benign as caching can be skewed into an image of geeks molesting the forest, and trampling sensitive areas. This reporter needs to go on a date sometime.

December 11, 2003

WELCOME TO THE LIBRAL MEDIA. Lets sensationalize and write in a durgotory way to make more waves. Jerks.

Ask any of the Offroad people on here that Cache. We are pretty use to this sort of junk out of the media. To hell with the facts lets take a slanted libral veiw and see if we can start a fight.

December 11, 2003

This is the worst story about geoacahing I have ever read. Although there were a few “positives” relating to the conduct of geocachers, the message the story conveys is that Geocaching is becoming a significant ecological and safety problem for public lands. That message was unsupported by any facts. What a load of crap.

December 11, 2003

Id like to know if they ever respond to your correction.............. please post! Its a shame that bad press exists. Its would be easy to work with the land management folks if they just give us a chance.

:lol:

38.2k · December 11, 2003

Here is my letter:

Dear Editor:

I read your November 28th article,"Forest Districts Unsettled by New Sport of Geocaching" and found it to be biased and full of misinformation. First, your portrayal of geocachers as "armies of amateur adventurers stomping on flowers and shrubs" is not an accurate one. Geocachers are, for the most part, nature enthusiasts. Our ranks include forest rangers, naturalists, law enforcement officers, park volunteers, environmentalists, hikers, birders and even LNT (Leave no trace) instructors, all of whom share the common goal of using technology to increase their enjoyment of the outdoors and discover new places.

Geocaching is a family oriented activity that provides the participants with the opportunity to experience areas of historic, natural, or scenic interest that are too often overlooked in our busy lives. Geocachers are not "invading public parks" any more than hikers, bird watchers, picnickers, dog walkers and other park users are invading our parks, nor do geocachers "molest the ground by digging", as it is against the rules of the sport to bury geocaches.

Admittedly, some land managers have chosen to restrict, or ban geocaching. In most cases they're reacting to misconceptions propagated by articles such as yours, rather than any empirical evidence of harmful effects. Despite your portrayal, geocaching has been found by the managers of many parks and preserves to be a low impact activity and embraced as an excellent way to increase public awareness and enjoyment of their lands.

Sincerely,

Brian Sniatkowski

Edited December 11, 2003 by briansnat

3.8k · December 11, 2003

Very nice letter, Brian. Let's hope it gets published.

1.1k · December 11, 2003

Excellent letter.

December 11, 2003

Beautiful letter, Brian.

Could you re-do my resume?

38.2k · December 11, 2003

Could you re-do my resume?

Not sure if you want that. Mine hasn't exactly kept my phone lines burning.

2k · December 11, 2003

Very well said.

How do you feel about plagerisim?

With a few minor changes this could be used as a nice formal "request to place cache" letter.

7.4k · December 11, 2003

Outstanding letter, Brian! One of the best I've seen.

December 11, 2003

I think we should have a standard letter that we can all use to approach land managers with. It should probably be endorsed by GC to give it a little more weight since they seem to be coordinating with these guys on a top level.

I hope that letter gets published too.

:lol:

3k · December 11, 2003

Excellent letter Brian. I couldn't have said it better, not even close. Thank you!

5.9k · December 11, 2003

Great letter!

but you shouldn't use the Sniatkowski at the end. :lol:

Edited December 11, 2003 by Criminal

38.2k · December 11, 2003

How do you feel about plagerisim?
With a few minor changes this could be used as a nice formal "request to place cache" letter.

Go right ahead. I also have a "request to place cache letter" that you can use. In fact I stole some of it to create this letter.

3k · December 11, 2003

If you have a comment or question about the Chicago Tribune newspaper, click here or call 1-800-TRIBUNE (1-800-874-2863).

You also can contact the newspaper's public editor, Don Wycliff, by e-mailing him at publiceditor@tribune.com or sending regular mail to 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago IL 60611

4.8k · December 11, 2003

Great letter! Let us know if it gets published.

38.2k · December 11, 2003

Great letter! Let us know if it gets published.

Since I don't get the CT, or live nearby, someone else will have to let me know if it was published.

By the way, I also sent a copy of the letter to the author (I think). I tried 10 combinations of his name @chicagotribune.com. 9 of them were kicked back, but

M.gibbard@chicgotribune.com was not, so I assume it went through.

Edited December 11, 2003 by briansnat

5.3k · December 11, 2003

Since I don't get the CT, or live nearby, someone else will have to let me know if it was published.

By the way, I also sent a copy of the letter to the author (I think). I tried 10 combinations of his name @chicagotribune.com. 9 of them were kicked back, but

M.gibbard@chicgotribune.com was not, so I assume it went through.

I have two friends who work at the Chicago Tribune (in distribution & finance, so they will be of no help) and their e-mail addresses are both first initial last name @ tribune.com (not @chicagotribune.com).

So I'm guessing the proper address would be mgibbard@tribune.com.

I'll keep an eye open to see if your letter gets printed.

Edited December 11, 2003 by Stunod

3.8k · December 11, 2003

***The following is a very bitter tirade against Mayer Daley****

Good luck working with the political a_ _ wipes in Chicago. We lived in Elgin when the political hack Daley was elected. Geocachers in Chicago beware that this man is one of the biggest liers in political history. If Daley or his cronies tells you that they participate in geocaching and think it is a great outdoor sport you can expect him to bulldoze the parks under within a month.

It has nothing to do with geocaching but the reason I am so bitter can be found here Friends of Meigs Field. Allowing the machine that is Chicago Politics to continue is not only bad for Chicago but will also lead to repercussions throughout the state of Illinois.

****End of tirade***

I can't imagine how anyone can compare the impact of geocaching on city parks to some of the other uses there. I recall kite enthusiast riding around in three wheel carts being pulled by large kites. Large dogs digging through the undergrowth chasing after squirrels and rabbits. Young lovers leaving evidence of their evening tryst among the open hidden areas. Bicyclist and runners leaving water cups along the lakefront trails. Young mothers leaving used diapers along the bike trails near Crystal Lake.

December 11, 2003

"Our rangers monitor the Web sites and go out and look for inappropriate content in the caches" such as pornography or drugs, said Mike Tully, director of maintenance and operations. No such material has been found, he said.

For me this was the most amusing part of the article. The ties between geoaching, porn and drugs must be running rampant.

December 11, 2003

I can see it now. A "cache-tax" being imposed to help defray the costs of manpower devoted to monitoring caches for porn and drugs.

2.5k · December 11, 2003

We lived in Elgin when the political hack Daley was elected. Geocachers in Chicago beware that this man is one of the biggest liers in political history. If Daley or his cronies tells you that they participate in geocaching and think it is a great outdoor sport you can expect him to bulldoze the parks under within a month.

It has nothing to do with geocaching but the reason I am so bitter can be found here Friends of Meigs Field

You're right. It has nothing to do with geocaching, so why even post it? Elgin is a POS town over 35 miles away and wouldn't even be considered a suburb. And you are living 400 miles away, so what difference does it make to you what goes on at Meigs Field?

Truth be told, Meigs airport was bulldozed so that it could be turned into a park. A park wasn't bulldozed as your post would lead some to believe. The so-called friends of Meigs are basically focused on having the airport re-opened, with a small park sharing the property.

Hey, some things may be screwed up around here, but having lived in Elgin doesn't qualify you as an authority on our parks. We don't need some stinkin' outsider :lol: commenting about our politics and parks. Meigs Field is property of the Chicago Park District which is entirely different from the Forest Preserves, which the article is about. CPD parks are among the finest I've ever seen.

2.5k · December 11, 2003

"Our rangers monitor the Web sites and go out and look for inappropriate content in the caches" such as pornography or drugs, said Mike Tully, director of maintenance and operations. No such material has been found, he said.

For me this was the most amusing part of the article. The ties between geoaching, porn and drugs must be running rampant.

..and the ATF monitors these geocaches for alchohol, tobacco and firearms. "None have been found, but we are keeping a sharp eye out for them."

Sheesh

5.3k · December 11, 2003

If there really was porn, alcohol, firearms and drugs in caches I'd cache everyday!!

December 11, 2003

From the newspaper article about the Forest Preserves:

"You want to know something about them personally, their background," Stroger said. "I don't know how they vote. But I sure like to think if they're helping me running this administration, they'd be with me. I'm a Democrat. I'd like to think that they'd be a Democrat."

But if the patronage employees of the Forest Preserves do such a good job, why are the forest preserves a mess, the new commissioners ask. Why is there a $12 million deficit? Why is there litter in the woods? Why is there a supervisor to worker ratio of 1:1 in some areas?

This makes it sound like the way to get these folks attention is for every Geocacher in the area to send them a letter saying they will no longer donate to or vote for Democrats in local elections. Politics appears to be their top priority, not conservation.

FWIW,

CharlieP

38.2k · December 11, 2003

If there really was porn, alcohol, firearms and drugs in caches I'd cache everyday!!

A few small bottles of Hennessy and a good cigar. Ahhhhhh. :lol:

3.9k · December 11, 2003

If there really was porn, alcohol, firearms and drugs in caches I'd cache everyday!!

A few small bottles of Hennessy and a good cigar. Ahhhhhh.

Actually I prefer Grand Marnier and a nice Cohiba. Mmmm....

1k · December 11, 2003

Not to mention possibly falling down ravines and getting hurt.

Geocaching policies vary widely. The U.S. Park Service bans it outright, said spokesman Jerry Gaumer. "The bottom line is by geocaching, you are disturbing the resources," he said, adding that unattended boxes hidden in forests could cause terrorism scares.

I found these two statements to be the most ludicrous of an entirely biased article. Is he telling us that geocachers are the only ones that are going to be falling down ravines and getting hurt?

And like an ammo box out in the middle of nowhere is really going to cause a terrorism scare. Maybe an ammo box, hidden next to a major city's police station, but not in the middle of a forest. Give me a break. :lol:

38.2k · December 11, 2003

...and a nice Cohiba.

Ahhhhh!

2k · December 11, 2003

I did notice that all the things the author mentioned the ranger were looking for are verboten with GC. Almost like he lifted large sections of the article right from the pages of gc.com. Huummmmm

1.5k · December 12, 2003

Brian,

That was an excellent article. My only hope is they don't 'edit for content' to the extent that it loses its meaning. I've been printed in the editor section probably 2-dozen times over the last 6 years, and quoted on a front page article. In some cases, they hacked the content to the point that it made little sense. Others, they left intact. It seemed that the segments that touched on things that might be too blunt, they modified or removed. The front page article took a partial sentence and by itself made absolutely no sense whatsoever unless you read the entire sentence (or the entire paragraph, for that matter).

38.2k · December 12, 2003

That was an excellent article. My only hope is they don't 'edit for content' to the extent that it loses its meaning. I've been printed in the editor section probably 2-dozen times over the last 6 years, and quoted on a front page article. In some cases, they hacked the content to the point that it made little sense. Others, they left intact. It seemed that the segments that touched on things that might be too blunt, they modified or removed. The front page article took a partial sentence and by itself made absolutely no sense whatsoever unless you read the entire sentence (or the entire paragraph, for that matter).

I know. At one time I was a prolific letter to the editor writer, but after seeing my letters hacked to pieces and key points removed, I realized it was a waste of time.

I even had one that was purposefully edited to make me look stupid by inserting poor grammar.

I'm sure that if it appears, it will read like this:

I read your November 28th article,"Forest Districts Unsettled by New Sport of Geocaching" and found it to be based on information. First, your portrayal of geocachers as "armies of amateur adventurers stomping on flowers and shrubs" is an accurate one. Geocachers are rank and use technology to increase their enjoyment .

Geocaching is an activity that provides the participants with the opportunity to invade public parks and bury geocaches.

Land managers have chosen to restrict, or ban geocaching. In most cases they're reacting to harmful effects.

Edited December 12, 2003 by briansnat

2.7k · December 12, 2003

"Our rangers monitor the Web sites and go out and look for inappropriate content in the caches" such as pornography or drugs, said Mike Tully, director of maintenance and operations. No such material has been found, he said.

For me this was the most amusing part of the article. The ties between geoaching, porn and drugs must be running rampant.

..and the ATF monitors these geocaches for alchohol, tobacco and firearms. "None have been found, but we are keeping a sharp eye out for them."

Sheesh

And the implication is "none have been found", therefore we must spend more money and look HARDER!

December 12, 2003

I got this from another post some time ago. It shows that the BLM has a policy for Geocaching. In fact this is a direct quote, "The BLM believes that geocaching is an appropriate casual use of the Public Lands."

Please read it for yourself and reference it whenever possible. :huh:

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/fy02/im2002-017.html

More Bad Press

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment