Grey Areas?

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

The fam and I were out recently finding a new cache in the Olympic National Forest... there are at least a good half-dozen hiding spots in the ONF, but to make a long and cranky story short, the gist is this:

 

Along carefully groomed trails (with interpretive signs to explain what we're seeing there) there are also signs that look like this (cute kid not included at most locations):

 

 

The cache hidden along these trails does, of course, require you to go off trail. Substantially. As given the coordinates are closer to 100 feet off than they are to 50, so it's not just a gentle simper to an obvious cache hiding spot, but an all-out search (provided you even get to the right side of the trail to start looking). Once you find the spot, it's pretty obvious where it is, but it's the getting there that's the trubba.

 

I was pretty careful in my searching (keeping everyone but myself on the trail, and then went about it by using the cut/downed trees in the area to stand on/walk out on) but I still felt pretty guilty about it. It's an absolutely gorgeous area in the rain forest, and intended to be indicative of what you can find there. And OBVIOUSLY, they don't want people traipsing through this area.

 

So, how do YOU feel about hides in areas like this? Poor taste? O.k.?

 

I know we have the standard 'it will recover' types of discussions, and in general, I agree... but where you're specifically asked not to do this, is it just wrong?

 

Grey area, indeed.

 

 

-=-

michelle

[+briansnat]

In areas where there are posted signs telling you to stay on the trail, I don't think caches should be hidden off the trail. Just gives us a bad name. Whether there is any real damage occurring is irrelevant. The land manager wants people to stay on the trail and that means hikers AND geocachers.

Edited May 11, 2004 by briansnat

[+Stunod]

EDIT: Looks like you re-read the original post...

Edited May 11, 2004 by Stunod

[+rusty_tlc]

Seems pretty black and white to me. The sign tells you to stay on the trail. Sounds like a good place for a multi stage cache with the actual cache located in a less trafficed area.

Edit : Less trafficed and outside the park.

Edited May 11, 2004 by rusty_tlc

[+tirediron]

While I am thankful that for the most part Canada (at least west of the Rockies) has many fewer issues with 'caching and government land than you do, I have to say that the case you describe sounds like a candidate for archiving. I fully agree with the "it will grow back" school of thought, however I think there are a number of factors to be considered.

 

Firstly not everyone will be as careful as you were (BTW, applause for your effort in that direction! ). There is also a good chance of be observed by muggles, no matter how careful you are. This can all lead to the park management placing an outright ban on caches in that area, and one more nice area is gone!

 

I would suggest that the 'cache owner should be contacted and perhaps asked to consider converting the 'cache to a micro. Given the abundance of signs, that might be a more effective way of keeping everyone happy...

 

So, the Cole's notes answer to your question is: No, I am not in favour of "Grey area 'caching"!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Since there are signs saying to stay on the trail, I think an off-trail cache is against the rules of the park. The cache should be moved to comply with the obvious rule depicted in the sign.

 

At the park where I am having my event cache, I asked the rangers specifically about placing a cache 100 feet or so off trail. They said they actually encourage people to explore the park, trail or not. As long as there is no damage being done to the area near the cache, they don't have a problem with it.

 

BTW, when a cache is placed extremely close to a trail (within 20 feet or so), most cachers will use the same path to get to it, always going off-trail at the same spot. This creates a "social trail" where the plants are worn down and eventually obliterated. It takes some time (a year or two) of no use on that trail before it grows back naturally. Placing a cache 50-100 feet or more reduces the chance that any two cachers will go off-trail at the same point. If there are rocks to walk on instead of grasses, it's much better to go off trail there.

[+bumblingbs]

I've read your log from the cache in question, and it certainly detailed your concerns with the cache. Have you had a response from the cache owner?

[+briansnat]

BTW, when a cache is placed extremely close to a trail (within 20 feet or so), most cachers will use the same path to get to it, always going off-trail at the same spot. This creates a "social trail" where the plants are worn down and eventually obliterated. It takes some time (a year or two) of no use on that trail before it grows back naturally. Placing a cache 50-100 feet or more reduces the chance that any two cachers will go off-trail at the same point. If there are rocks to walk on instead of grasses, it's much better to go off trail there.

 

I've found this to be the case. The further off the trail the cache is, the less likely it is that a social trail will form. But as GPSax says, where the land manager wants people to stay on the trail, they should.

 

Things like this concern me because its in a national forest and they've been pretty open to geocaching since the beginning. Enough caches like this one and that could change and we're talking a loooooot of land here in the US that could become off limits to geocaching.

Edited May 11, 2004 by briansnat

[+Team Geo-Joes]

I agree, Our objective as cachers is to remain basically out of sight, to find what we came there for and to leave, sight unseen. So with that said, it is also our job to make sure we respect all signs posted and move to another area where we can go "off the trail..." Really liked the multi-cache idea....

[+JoGPS]

If a sign said “Don’t Go There” then don’t …………. JOE

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

Have you had a response from the cache owner?

Nary a peep.

 

After writing the log, I sent a somewhat long and detailed message about the issues with this placement as I see them - there are others besides those stated in the log - and offered to help them out a bit.

 

But it's only been a couple of days impatience on my part so we'll see how it shakes out.

 

 

Thanks for opining, y'all!

 

-=-

michelle

[+Melrose Plant]

Since there are signs saying to stay on the trail, I think an off-trail cache is against the rules of the park. The cache should be moved to comply with the obvious rule depicted in the sign.

 

At the park where I am having my event cache, I asked the rangers specifically about placing a cache 100 feet or so off trail. They said they actually encourage people to explore the park, trail or not. As long as there is no damage being done to the area near the cache, they don't have a problem with it.

 

BTW, when a cache is placed extremely close to a trail (within 20 feet or so), most cachers will use the same path to get to it, always going off-trail at the same spot. This creates a "social trail" where the plants are worn down and eventually obliterated. It takes some time (a year or two) of no use on that trail before it grows back naturally. Placing a cache 50-100 feet or more reduces the chance that any two cachers will go off-trail at the same point. If there are rocks to walk on instead of grasses, it's much better to go off trail there.

I don't think there's much grey here. It's an awful lot like a "No Trespassing" sign. They can't mean me, can they?

 

I've found the observation about caches which are very close to the trail to be quite true. The further away ones are better anyway because you don't have to worry about muggles, and they're just the same amount of difficulty to find months later as when they were first placed. I've got one, placed in December 2003, that is starting to develop a spur trail right to it. We'll see what it looks like by the end of the summer. I might have to move it.

 

I might want to qualify the above statement about not having to worry about muggles far off the trail. Just last week, we were muggle-jumped pretty bad by some mushroom hunters very far off the trail. Luckily, they seemed to be looking for mushrooms more than they were paying attention to us. The cache has been found twice in the last week! Hooray!

[+rusty_tlc]

Actually it is my understanding that a "No Trespassing" sign sometimes means stay on the road. A private land owner can post property no trespassing but cannot block a "public through fare" (sp?). It all depends on if the road was in common use before the signs went up or not.

[+norbu]

caches placed off-trail in areas that have such clear indications that off-trail activity is prohibited, are the reason that many parks don't like geocaching....so sad.

[CoyoteRed]

It's clearly not a grey area in the least. The owner has made clear his wishes and cache owners should honor it.

 

Unless that cache owner can show he has permission and puts it on his cache page, this cache is a candidate for SBA.

 

You must always respect property rights.

[+Bull Moose]

The problem I have with this cache is that there are thousands of acres in the Olympic National Forest with very few caches and this one is placed on a nature trail in a frontcountry area? C'mon!

[+SixDogTeam]

I don't see anything"grey" about that sign. It says stay off. What's hard to understand about that?

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

The problem I have with this cache is that there are thousands of acres in the Olympic National Forest with very few caches and this one is placed on a nature trail in a frontcountry area? C'mon!

Funny you should mention that Bull Moose...

 

I hadn't looked at the kind of 'hike' we were in for before headed out this way, but we were prepared for anything that could be found along the trails on this side of the lake (nothing too big since I had my small kids with me that day). Imagine my surprise to find it was .16 miles from the parking area. We decided to take the long way around this particular loop and made it clear up to .18 miles away from the cache before we closed in.

 

The horror.

 

But yes, SO much forest, so much of it beautiful and there it sat. (And you know, there are already at least two others right off the trail down the road apiece - there was no reason to have this there just to 'get people to the area'.)

 

Colonel Bob, anyone?

 

 

-=-

michelle

[Tahosa and Sons]

Since the rain forest is an ecological rarity in the US I believe what they say, stay on the trail. There are spots, probably not in that area that can support off trail activites, so unless one is absolutely sure stay on the trail.

[Ellylidan]

Well, on the one hand, the sign may or may not be official. Any fruitcup can print that out, and judging from the horrified look on the tree, one may have.

 

On the other hand, it is a sign.

 

On another hand (somebody loan me one here) since when does trodding on a tree root damage it? Sounds like malarky to me.

 

On another hand, that's some awesome avatar.

 

Oh yeah, when are you all going to visit me again?

Edited May 11, 2004 by Ellylidan

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

Is IT happening?

 

That may be worth a visit.

 

 

-=-

m

[+shunra]

It's clearly not a grey area in the least. The owner has made clear his wishes and cache owners should honor it.

Unless that cache owner can show he has permission and puts it on his cache page, this cache is a candidate for SBA.

That's my opinon, too.

If I came across a cache in such a location, I would not even try to argue with the owner, but promptly put an SBA on it, with an explanation. Let the approvers deal with it. This is not a grey area.

 

That doesn't mean that there aren't grey areas. A grey area would be when a cache is placed in such a way that it requires cachers to destroy the vegetation, without this explicitly being forbidden. I still think it's undesirable, but that's just my opinion, and someone else's opinion that destroying the vegetation is OK is just as legitimate, when it isn't explicitly forbidden.

[+robert]

Shunra beat me to it. Log a SBA note and let the approvers take care of it. Use the picture you have as evidence as to why it should be archived. I'd hope the approvers would request the cache be retrieved by the owner but if I were you I'd keep the coords so that if it does get archived you can check it in a month or so to make sure it indeed was removed.

[+shunra]

Shunra beat me to it. Log a SBA note and let the approvers take care of it. Use the picture you have as evidence as to why it should be archived. I'd hope the approvers would request the cache be retrieved by the owner but if I were you I'd keep the coords so that if it does get archived you can check it in a month or so to make sure it indeed was removed.

What I've seen approvers doing is posting a note, asking that the next person who logs a find removes the box, content and all, and then log another SBA. This is to avoid geolitter. Only after the 2nd SBA, the approvers will archive the cache listing.

One example in which I posted the initial SBA myself is Not Again.

[+briansnat]

Shunra beat me to it. Log a SBA note and let the approvers take care of it. Use the picture you have as evidence as to why it should be archived. I'd hope the approvers would request the cache be retrieved by the owner but if I were you I'd keep the coords so that if it does get archived you can check it in a month or so to make sure it indeed was removed.

 

 

In this case I'd hold off on the SBA. Its a new cache placed by an active geocachers. Give the guy a chance to address it himself. CD did the right thing with her log by expressing her concerns in it. A minor relocation could possibly be all it needs. Now if he ignores the situation, then it could be time for a SBA.

 

BTW, has anybody sent a link to this thread to the owner? He might be interested in what others have to say.

[+shunra]

Shunra beat me to it. Log a SBA note and let the approvers take care of it. Use the picture you have as evidence as to why it should be archived. I'd hope the approvers would request the cache be retrieved by the owner but if I were you I'd keep the coords so that if it does get archived you can check it in a month or so to make sure it indeed was removed.

 

 

In this case I'd hold off on the SBA. Its a new cache placed by an active geocachers. Give the guy a chance to address it himself. CD did the right thing with her log by expressing her concerns in it. A minor relocation could possibly be all it needs. Now if he ignores the situation, then it could be time for a SBA.

 

BTW, has anybody sent a link to this thread to the owner? He might be interested in what others have to say.

1 - I don't know which cache it is, and who the owner is. Does it matter?

2 - Active or not, this is a rather blatant violation of park rules and geocaching rules, and a cause for damage to both.

3 - CG has already said he hasn't responded.

4 - The hider is not accountable to me. However, he is accountable to the approvers and to the park authorities. That's why an immediate SBA is called for. An SBA does not prevent the hider to do anything to rectify the situation.

 

I would hold off on removing the cache unilaterally myself, or informing the park authorities, precisely because I have the diplomatic option of taking recourse to an SBA.

[+briansnat]

I would hold off on removing the cache unilaterally myself, or informing the park authorities, precisely because I have the diplomatic option of taking recourse to an SBA.

 

I think the diplomatic way would be to deal directly with the owner at first. I know I'd be annoyed if someone posted a SBA on one of my caches without bringing the issue to my attention first. I think that's just a matter of courtesy. Maybe the owner isn't aware of the signs because he came in from a different direction. Maybe he actually has permission. Give the guy a chance to address it first. It's been less than 2 days since it was logged.

Edited May 12, 2004 by briansnat

[Ellylidan]

Is IT happening?

 

That may be worth a visit.

 

 

-=-

m

Why yes, IT was.

 

I watched you closely as you moved through my lair, IT was happening then and is still so now.

 

Come back sometime, I would love to eat you...

 

Little death perhaps?

[+bumblingbs]

I would hold off on removing the cache unilaterally myself, or informing the park authorities, precisely because I have the diplomatic option of taking recourse to an SBA.

 

I think the diplomatic way would be to deal directly with the owner at first. I know I'd be annoyed if someone posted a SBA on one of my caches without first bringing the issue to my attention first. I think that's just a matter of courtesy. Maybe the owner isn't aware of the signs because he came in from a different direction. Maybe he actually has permission. Give the guy a chance to address it first. It's been less than 2 days since it was logged.

I'm glad to log on and see this post. I'd been trying hard to think of a nice way to address my concerns.

If I were perceive that there was a problem with a cache placement, I would ~first~ go directly to the owner with my concerns. In this case, the cache owner, while not terribly active, has been a geocacher for several years. I would give them the benefit of the doubt. I imagine the hider intended to show other cachers a beautiful area; not to discredit geocaching locally or destroy the natural area. If they have gone wrong, it would be kinder to first correct them gently, rather than making them feel totally reamed by the entire geocaching community.

I would advocate that you give them a reasonable period to respond before taking any action at all. In the meantime, your well documented experience should encourage other cachers to just avoid the cache until the issue has been resolved.

Edited May 12, 2004 by bumblingbs

[+bons]

Come back sometime, I would love to eat you...

 

Little death perhaps?

Most disturbing double entendre ever.

[+sept1c_tank]

I say, "If it grows, trample it!" If it's a rain forest, tramp on it several times.

 

The sign does not command you to stay on the trail, it politely asks you to stay on the trail. But common sense dictates: This is a no-brainer. Social trails may take longer to repair than a year or two; if there's a trail there, someone will follow it. And then someone else, and so on. We don't need "social" trails anyplace, especially in rainforests.

 

And we certainly don't need to be the social segment of society that leads by, "It's OK for us to do this because we're geocachers."

 

It occurs to me that this cache begs for further review.

[+cachew nut]

That's crazy. Everyone knows that trees can't talk. My guess is that the cute little girl is a ventriloquist.

[+bumblingbs]

BTW, (OT)

I find that I often, if not always, agree with briansnat. I live in Washington State, but I'm a Jersey girl, born and bred.

I like eggplant!, though, so let the debate begin!!!

[+Sparky-Watts]

I'd say since the land manager doesn't want you to go off the trail, then you shouldn't go off the trail. I can't believe no one else has given that answer....oh....nevermind.

[+briansnat]

I'd say since the land manager doesn't want you to go off the trail, then you shouldn't go off the trail. I can't believe no one else has given that answer....oh....nevermind

 

I thought I did...and about 15 other people.

[+Criminal]

I'd say since the land manager doesn't want you to go off the trail, then you shouldn't go off the trail. I can't believe no one else has given that answer....oh....nevermind

 

I thought I did...and about 15 other people.

It was mentioned above, rather obscurely. How do you know a land manager put up those signs? Maybe it was put up by some butinski tree hugger group.

 

If I go to your favorite park and prop up a sign that says "NO Frisbee Playing Allpwed!" you would all like sheep put away your frisbees?

 

I wouldn't hide a geocache off trail in such a place, but no sign of questionable authority would limit my wanderings.

[+shunra]

I would hold off on removing the cache unilaterally myself, or informing the park authorities, precisely because I have the diplomatic option of taking recourse to an SBA.

 

I think the diplomatic way would be to deal directly with the owner at first. I know I'd be annoyed if someone posted a SBA on one of my caches without bringing the issue to my attention first. I think that's just a matter of courtesy. Maybe the owner isn't aware of the signs because he came in from a different direction. Maybe he actually has permission. Give the guy a chance to address it first. It's been less than 2 days since it was logged.

Briansnat,

 

You and I are not in the position to argue with a fellow geocacher about the legality of his caches. I am not that arrogant. I am not an approver, nor will I play one, or police my fellow cachers. Conversely, my fellow cacher does not owe me an explanation. Neither I nor other finders need to be in the loop about what the cache owner explains to the approver. We can tip the approver and give him some information that he otherwise wouldn't have, but then it's no longer our business, as fellow cachers. Therefore, I would post an SBA.

 

If I would know about a non-cacher who is encouraging other people to damage a park, I would not have that option, and my citizen's duty would be to report those activities to the park authorities, so they can prevent further damage. I would never do that to a fellow geocacher, precisely because there are other authorities, who would deal with this matter in a more diplomatic way.

 

(You don't need to agree with me, but if you don't, at least say why. And as to this particular case, I believe CG when she says that there were at least 10 to 20 signs, and must dismiss your speculation that he might not have seen them)

 

But thanks for finally providing a link to the page. Now I too know which cache you're all talking about.

[+briansnat]

You and I are not in the position to argue with a fellow geocacher about the legality of his caches. I am not that arrogant. I am not an approver, nor will I play one, or police my fellow cachers. Conversely, my fellow cacher does not owe me an explanation. Neither I nor other finders need to be in the loop about what the cache owner explains to the approver. We can tip the approver and give him some information that he otherwise wouldn't have, but then it's no longer our business, as fellow cachers. Therefore, I would post an SBA.

 

I still think giving the owner a "heads up" is the courteous thing to do. You're certainly free to handle things your way, but you surely won't win the "most popular" award at the next geocaching event.

 

It was mentioned above, rather obscurely. How do you know a land manager put up those signs? Maybe it was put up by some butinski tree hugger group.

 

If I go to your favorite park and prop up a sign that says "NO Frisbee Playing Allpwed!" you would all like sheep put away your frisbees?

 

I think we were all assuming for the sake of argument that the signs were legit. Perhaps they weren't and the placer was aware of this fact. Something else that could be straightened out by contacting the owner directly.

Edited May 12, 2004 by briansnat

[+shunra]

You and I are not in the position to argue with a fellow geocacher about the legality of his caches. I am not that arrogant. I am not an approver, nor will I play one, or police my fellow cachers. Conversely, my fellow cacher does not owe me an explanation. Neither I nor other finders need to be in the loop about what the cache owner explains to the approver. We can tip the approver and give him some information that he otherwise wouldn't have, but then it's no longer our business, as fellow cachers. Therefore, I would post an SBA.

I still think giving the owner a "heads up" is the courteous thing to do. You're certainly free to handle things your way, but you surely won't win the "most popular" award at the next geocaching event.

You make it sound as if playing "self-appointed mini-approver" would be more popular.

 

But you're absolutely right.

The thing is, I happen to think that the plants in the park, the image of geocaching, and the avoidance of a future ban on geocaching in certain areas are more important than my popularity, in particular my popularity with people who don't care about any of the above.

 

If my purpose was to be popular, I would not log an SBA, not contact the owner with any questions or criticism, and post a Find log with lots of smileys, full of praise about his wonderful cache placement.

 

Sometimes, one just has to do the right thing, even at a personal price. It may be at the price of popularity, but in the end it pays off in terms of respect.

 

Daniel

(never been populistically correct)

Edited May 12, 2004 by Shunra

[+Sparky-Watts]

You and I are not in the position to argue with a fellow geocacher about the legality of his caches. I am not that arrogant. I am not an approver, nor will I play one, or police my fellow cachers. Conversely, my fellow cacher does not owe me an explanation. Neither I nor other finders need to be in the loop about what the cache owner explains to the approver. We can tip the approver and give him some information that he otherwise wouldn't have, but then it's no longer our business, as fellow cachers. Therefore, I would post an SBA.

I still think giving the owner a "heads up" is the courteous thing to do. You're certainly free to handle things your way, but you surely won't win the "most popular" award at the next geocaching event.

You make it sound as if playing "self-appointed mini-approver" would be more popular.

 

But you're absolutely right.

The thing is, I happen to think that the plants in the park, the image of geocaching, and the avoidance of a future ban on geocaching in certain areas are more important than my popularity, in particular my popularity with people who don't care about any of the above.

 

If my purpose was to be popular, I would not log an SBA, not contact the owner with any questions or criticism, and post a Find log with lots of smileys, full of praise about his wonderful cache placement.

 

Sometimes, one just has to do the right thing, even at a personal price. It may be at the price of popularity, but in the end it pays off in terms of respect.

 

Daniel

(never been populistically correct)

You're absolutely right. Being popular isn't always all it's cracked up to be, and if you lose that popularity by advancing the hobby and protecting geocaching from being banned in various areas, then by all means, that is the right thing to do. I was a City Councilman for 4 years, and I know how doing the right thing and stepping on some toes will affect popularity (note I said "was a City Councilman"). I knew I would not be re-elected for my actions, but what I did was a definate improvement to the city and the way it functions. So, I stepped on some toes, but I did it for the right reasons. The people whose respect I had prior to that still respect me for what I did. The ones whose respect I lost, I didn't care to have it in the first place.

[+briansnat]

Sometimes, one just has to do the right thing, even at a personal price. It may be at the price of popularity, but in the end it pays off in terms of respect.

 

And each individual determines what is the "right thing". Heck, we saw on the Internet yesterday what some people thought who though they were doing the "right thing" can do. Not that there is an equation here, but everone has their own perception as to what is "right". I don't mean to be corny, but maybe the "golden rule" can fit in here. If you made a mistake, how would YOU want to be treated?

Edited May 12, 2004 by briansnat

[+shunra]

Sometimes, one just has to do the right thing, even at a personal price. It may be at the price of popularity, but in the end it pays off in terms of respect.

 

And each individual determines what is the "right thing". Heck we saw on the Internet yesterday what some people thought was the "right thing" can do. Not that there is an equation here, but everone has their own perception as to what is "right". Not to be corny, but maybe the "golden rule" can fit in here. If you made a mistake, how would YOU want to be treated? If you don't mind being dragged out and whipped in public, then hey, that's your bag.

I don't know what you're talking about, I don't watch TV.

 

Yes, I apply the golden rule, too. I would hate to find someone's grievances in their Find log. I would much rather have them in an SBA, which I can delete while dealing with the content. And I would much rather deal with an approver than with arbitrary finders.

 

And if "publicity" is your concern: How is an SBA more public that the Find log in this particular case? Quite the contrary: there is a much lower threshold for deleting an SBA than there is for deleting someone's legitimate Find. The Find log (with the embarassment it causes to the cache owner) is there to stay, until the Finder himself decides to change it.

 

An SBA, however, even when deleted, brings the matter to the attention of the approvers, AND takes the poster out of the loop.

 

And finally, Briansnat: I see that you're getting all emotional about this, and dragging things in such as an individual's popularity, you talk about begin dragged and whipped in public, etc. It is OK for you to disagree with me, but please don't get personal. I generally have the highest respect for your opinions, but I reserve the right to disagree with you occasionally, without getting blows below the belt. The golden rule applies here, too. If you have a personal axe to grind, THAT would be an opportunity for a private message. Not matters where the reputation of geocaching is at stake.

 

Thank you.

Edited May 12, 2004 by Shunra

[+shunra]

Heck we saw on the Internet yesterday what some people thought was the "right thing" can do.

 

I don't know what you're talking about, I don't watch TV.

Oops, sorry. You said Internet, but I read TV. My wrong.

 

I indeed don't watch TV, nor do I passively consume any form of media. I try to read newspapers that are a week old. It's the best way to filter out the irrelevant parts. If I missed something important, let me know...

Edited May 12, 2004 by Shunra

[+rusty_tlc]

Heck we saw on the Internet yesterday what some people thought was the "right thing" can do.

 

I don't know what you're talking about, I don't watch TV.

Oops, sorry. You said Internet, but I read TV. My wrong.

 

I indeed don't watch TV, nor do I passively consume any form of media. I try to read newspapers that are a week old. It's the best way to filter out the irrelevant parts. If I missed something important, let me know...

We have a new president, he looks a lot like one we had a few years ago.

Alaska is a state now.

[+shunra]

I indeed don't watch TV, nor do I passively consume any form of media. I try to read newspapers that are a week old. It's the best way to filter out the irrelevant parts. If I missed something important, let me know... 

We have a new president, he looks a lot like one we had a few years ago.

Alaska is a state now.

Presidents - there must be a new one. After all, they replace 'em every 4 or 8 years. But Alaska, a real state? You mean there's 49 now? Geez! That's bigger even than Texas, isn't it?

[+briansnat]

[ Personal attack, profanity and graphic sexual references deleted]

Edited May 13, 2004 by briansnat

[+shunra]

[ Personal attack, profanity and graphic sexual references deleted]

Thanks

[+briansnat]

[+Confucius' Cat]

An SBA is entirely appropriate. The SBA doesn't automatically archive a cache, it just brings the situation to the attention of TPTB.

 

There is a LOT at stake when a cache is placed in an illegal area.

 

If indeed going off trail is forbidden by the park, there is probably a legal penalty for violation.

 

Not only should the cache owner consider the flora in regards to the sign, but also heshe should consider what responsibility shehe might have, morally, for leading others into a situation where they could face arrest or citation. (I worry that this might be way too common in geocaching)

 

I hate to think of leaving geolitter, but it might be best to archive it and leave it, since the person who goes to get it will be trespassing. It would be a real shame to be arrested for "doing the right thing" when it comes to cleaning up the situation.

 

OTOH maybe the signs weren't there when the cache was placed. In which case simply "levelling" with the park police by the cache owner might allow himher free passage to go retrieve it.

 

The only "gray area" I see is whether it is right to go get it (or just leave it there) now that it is clear that one must trespass to get it.

 

Not trespassing and obeying signs which clearly express the intent of the land owners (managers) is not "gray" in my book it runs more along the lines of DUH!

 

The fine you pay will probably not be "gray" either- it will most likely be GREEN

[IronMaiden]

I have lived in this part of WA. State all my life. My husband have been to Olympic National Park many times. Years ago you could go off trail and roam around. Now things have changed.

 

We don't like some of the rules the National Park system has put up. But if the sign says, "STAY ON TRAIL" then you have to do it.

 

Some Rangers would be very unhappy if they see you break any of the park rules. I'd hate to see a fellow geo-cacher get into trouble for going off trail.

 

No C-Gal I'm not picking on you. What you did was right you contacted the person who put the cache out. It just makes me mad that another cacher did this, just went and put the cache out there with out checking on the rules.

 

BTW..... We're not tree huggers

 

Edit... Coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

Edited June 11, 2004 by IronMaiden