I'd Rather Fight Than Quit ... ?

September 7, 2004

I'm soliciting opines, please. I have a dilemma. I have a cache, very easy cache hidden in a park that was established by a small group of volunteers. This small group including myself worked very hard to get the park open, and so some of us feel a little bit...personal about it. Some more than others it seems because even though I told the other board members that I was putting a cache in the woods, about 10 feet off a trail in an area that was not overgrown with underbrush, a natural clearing under the trees, so as to demonstrate my concern that we don't trample every fern frond in sight, sent them a link to this web site, even showed the contents to one member, one of them has built a fort out of branches blocking access to the path leading to the cache. How do I know a board member did this ? I'm not postive, but I'm pretty sure I know who it is because he confronted me once when he saw a cacher seeking the cache one day. He sneered about flailing in the brush and creating a trail not designed in the orginal plan. It's a dog park for goodness sake ! The park is important to me too, so is having my cache there. A 10 ft path to a cache in a 30 acre natural habitat park...come on !

Should I confront him ?

Should I move the cache to a location to a less travelled ?

Both ?

Remove the fort and carry on ?

Any other ideas ?

3k · September 7, 2004

I'm soliciting opines, please. I have a dilemma.

1. You speak of a "board." Who owns the land on which the park is built?

2. Did "the board" approve of your cache placement?

3. Did "the board" grant permission for the "fort" to be built?

4. Is permission required for any activity to be undertaken in the park?

5. Which has the greater environmental impact?

6. Which is more of an inconvenience to others using the park?

September 7, 2004

I'm soliciting opines, please. I have a dilemma.

1. You speak of a "board." Who owns the land on which the park is built?

2. Did "the board" approve of your cache placement?

3. Did "the board" grant permission for the "fort" to be built?

4. Is permission required for any activity to be undertaken in the park?

5. Which has the greater environmental impact?

6. Which is more of an inconvenience to others using the park?

The land is owned by the county parks department

The board is the directors, of which I am one. No I did not seek approval to place a cache in a county park where there are no rules against doing so.

The fort is a statement. Neither is likely to have much of an environmental impact. If anything the intended use of the park would impact the environment more than either the cache or the 'fort' blocking the path to it.

3k · September 7, 2004

The land is owned by the county parks department

The board is the directors, of which I am one. No I did not seek approval to place a cache in a county park where there are no rules against doing so.

The fort is a statement.

So what is the nature and purpose of "the board?"

If no permission was required, why did you bring your cache to the attention of the board?

I suppose your recourse is to make sure "the fort" is brought to the attention of the board along with the question "Is this a public nuisance?"

Edited September 7, 2004 by BassoonPilot

2.7k · September 7, 2004

Nextboard meeting bring it up for a vote. Cache Yes or No. If they say NO. Then I would quit the board and move the cache and let them be.

September 7, 2004

Clarification - the board of directors is for the non profit organization that established the park in it's current use.. Our mission statement is to work with the county to develope and maintain off leash recreation areas. We don't make the rules for the county parks.

The reason I told them that I was placing a cache in the park was to make sure they weren't confrontational to geocachers. This property has been closed and vandalized for several years. We spent thousands in time and money to clean it up and make it safe. I did not want geocachers to be suspected of looking in the woods for a place to dump old paint cans or dispose of needles.

The 'fort' is really just a lot of branches stack up to block access to the cache. It's not blocking the trail proper. So I don't think it's a nuisance, except to geocachers.

4.5k · September 7, 2004

Nextboard meeting bring it up for a vote. Cache Yes or No. If they say NO. Then I would quit the board and move the cache and let them be.

I dont think that a vote is needed. Lolita stated that it is a county park and there are no rules concerning geocaching. Case closed!

It looks like she is has put forth alot of effort with the development of the park and in placement of the cache, so i can understand why she would be upset with what's happening. Blocking the trail with a stick fort is definitely on the childish side and does hurt the park. Lolita, i would think the person you suspected would just take the cache rather than go through the trouble of blocking the trail. For now, maybe you should just remove the fort and see what happens!

24.7k · September 7, 2004

Having geocachers frequenting a location that was reclaimed can only do a world of good to keep it that way. You could find police officers willing to back you up on this assertion.

Some ammo for your pending fight.

3k · September 7, 2004

I would therefore remove "the fort," for clearly it is the type of detritus/dumped material you and your board worked so hard to eliminate from the property. And then I would move the cache to a different area of the park without notifying anyone.

2k · September 7, 2004

Maybe this would be a good time to get the county to state an official policy on geocaching? You seem to be in a good position to be proactive and get favorable rules in place for the rest of the geocaching community. The effort would pay dividends for not only your current situation but for furture caches.

September 7, 2004

Does anyone else see the irony in the "board" member using "detritus/dumped material" when most cachers practice CITO...

Which might be a good point for you to bring up if you do have to present this to the board/park system.

Edited September 7, 2004 by woof n lulu

24.7k · September 7, 2004

I would therefore remove "the fort," for clearly it is the type of detritus/dumped material you and your board worked so hard to eliminate from the property...

I'll second this.

The parks system relies on boards like yours to help reclaim and expand the park system. You may not think you have sway but you do. Here in Pocatello our local non-profit greenway foundation has a lot of clout when it comes to our developing trail system. It gets the city points with the citizens and in turn those points are viewed favorably by our city fathers, many of whom are elected and love to score the easy points like that.

6.5k · September 7, 2004

Why not get another local cacher on the board too? Then the opposition will be outnumbered. Either remove the 'fort' or add a* to the terrain for the obstacle.

1.6k · September 7, 2004

I support the idea of a vote, even if its just for this park. Either the board supports you or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then its public and other cachers will be able to know about it.

Think about people trying out caching for the first time and they see your cache listing that is near their home/business/relatives home, etc, and they go there to try it out.

If the board is cryptically against you, then when these new people get hassled and torked off at you and GC for listing the cache, we will lose a member. If the board is openly against you, the cache can be archived and the trouble avoided.

3k · September 7, 2004

It has already been established that the board neither creates nor enforces rules for county parks, so a vote would merely be divisive.

September 7, 2004

I support the idea of a vote, even if its just for this park. Either the board supports you or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then its public and other cachers will be able to know about it.

Think about people trying out caching for the first time and they see your cache listing that is near their home/business/relatives home, etc, and they go there to try it out.

If the board is cryptically against you, then when these new people get hassled and torked off at you and GC for listing the cache, we will lose a member. If the board is openly against you, the cache can be archived and the trouble avoided.

It's not the board's decision if geocaches can be placed in the park. Don't have a right to vote on it because it's a county park. We can trim bushes, we can have work parties to clean up messes, we can have fund raising events. We can't make county park rules. And we can't harrass anyone. ( with exception of each other )

As far is getting the county to officially approve geocaching, while I think that would be a great and noble cause - There are many, many, many caches in this county. That effort would affect more than my cache and risking theirs along with mine is not a decision I would make on my own. In fact, I don't know for a fact that geocaching has already been signed off on as a wholesome family activity and approved by the county already. Even if it has, there are no rules, I'm pretty sure, about stacking up branches shoulder high. That - as one of you mentioned, is childish.

20.7k · September 7, 2004

I'm with BP on this one. Trash out the branches and move the cache to a different area within the park. Do not mention either activity to the board or the offended BM.

38.2k · September 7, 2004

I think your first mistake was telling everyone.

But you have to wonder about the thought process of someone who uses brush and other debris to make what is probably an unsightly barrier to the cache.

I agree with the others who say archive the cache, then wait a few months and quietly place it in another part of the park .

Then go to the next board meeting and express your dismay about the unauthorized structures being built out of debris in the park. :huh:

Edited September 7, 2004 by briansnat

September 7, 2004

I think your first mistake was telling everyone.

But you have to wonder about the thought process of someone who uses brush and other debris to make what is probably an unsightly barrier to the cache.

I agree with the others who say archive the cache, then wait a few months and quietly place it in another part of the park .

Then go to the next board meeting and express your dismay about the unauthorized structures being built out of debris in the park.

Agree, agree, mostly agree, and good idea !

Thanks.

1.6k · September 7, 2004

I support the idea of a vote, even if its just for this park. Either the board supports you or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then its public and other cachers will be able to know about it.

Think about people trying out caching for the first time and they see your cache listing that is near their home/business/relatives home, etc, and they go there to try it out.

If the board is cryptically against you, then when these new people get hassled and torked off at you and GC for listing the cache, we will lose a member. If the board is openly against you, the cache can be archived and the trouble avoided.

It's not the board's decision if geocaches can be placed in the park. Don't have a right to vote on it because it's a county park. We can trim bushes, we can have work parties to clean up messes, we can have fund raising events. We can't make county park rules. And we can't harrass anyone. ( with exception of each other )

As far is getting the county to officially approve geocaching, while I think that would be a great and noble cause - There are many, many, many caches in this county. That effort would affect more than my cache and risking theirs along with mine is not a decision I would make on my own. In fact, I don't know for a fact that geocaching has already been signed off on as a wholesome family activity and approved by the county already. Even if it has, there are no rules, I'm pretty sure, about stacking up branches shoulder high. That - as one of you mentioned, is childish.

I guess the thing that would cause me to push the board for a vote is that there may be more than 1 person who is against you. If you find that out by their votes, you can avoid a repeat event happening if you archive the cache and move it elsewhere in your park.

Make is a show of hands and keep track of who votes for each side. If the opposition has some movers and shakers on their side, bad the whole idea of a repeat cache and move on to other areas.

September 7, 2004

Roll for initiative.

Use the press and PR as a weapon. Organize a CITO event, get your picture in the paper, use the "fort" as an example of the "trash" the concerned group of geocachers is helping to clean up and remove and point out how much "safer" the park is now because of group activity and use.

2k · September 7, 2004

...
As far is getting the county to officially approve geocaching, while I think that would be a great and noble cause - There are many, many, many caches in this county. That effort would affect more than my cache and risking theirs along with mine is not a decision I would make on my own. In fact, I don't know for a fact that geocaching has already been signed off on as a wholesome family activity and approved by the county already. Even if it has, there are no rules, I'm pretty sure, about stacking up branches shoulder high. That - as one of you mentioned, is childish.

I was thinking in terms of the County Parks Department. Their rules would only affect caches placed within county parks, not every cache in the Co. As far as affecting other caches, the policy will be made eventually with or without your input. It is far better to have geocacher, who is familiar parks systems management suggest that a policy be implemented than let them make policy without input from the caching community.

And yes it would be noble. :huh:

5.9k · September 7, 2004

Lolita, I will find it eventually!

Meantime, if it becomes a problem, move it to a different location inside the park and don't tell the idiot. Problem solved.

3.9k · September 8, 2004

I would therefore remove "the fort," for clearly it is the type of detritus/dumped material you and your board worked so hard to eliminate from the property. And then I would move the cache to a different area of the park without notifying anyone.

I think that is your answer Lolita. Yep, I'm agreeing with BP. All we need now is for Mopar to agree with him too and I think that would be a sign of the end of times. :huh:

1.8k · September 8, 2004

Years ago I got a book into my Pastoral Library entitled "Well-Intentioned Dragons." The theme is that in the church we often (very often) have people who intend to do well, but some screw has come loose in their thinking. Our job is NOT to slay every dragon. What have you won if you beat this guy down? I suspect that he thinks he's one of the good guys. The way to win a dragon is with time and exposure and involvement. The loose screw is obvious, if, in fact, he did try to block a trail. Strange thinking. Perhaps you can find a way to involve him? If you try to slay the dragon, you will find trouble.

3.8k · September 8, 2004

I think your first mistake was telling everyone.

But you have to wonder about the thought process of someone who uses brush and other debris to make what is probably an unsightly barrier to the cache.

I agree with the others who say archive the cache, then wait a few months and quietly place it in another part of the park .

Then go to the next board meeting and express your dismay about the unauthorized structures being built out of debris in the park.

I couldn't agree more. :blink: :blink:

4.7k · September 8, 2004

the fort is childish.

the guy is clearly one of these passive-aggressive weenies who doesn't have adult communications skills.

i think your best ammuntion will be to behave in a grown-up manner and to be gracious, regardless of the tack you choose.

it will not serve you to fight him on his territory, nor will it serve you to engage in a power struggle with him.

do what you can do to put your ducks in order and move quickly when you move.

if you arrange your case well, you can put it in a way that makes anybody submarining it look like a jerk. not opposing it openly, but submarining it.

it is appropriate for people with opposing views to express these and come to terms. it is not appropriate to build little forts and otherwise harass each other indirectly.

i wouldn't ask for a vote- it seems to me that it would be more divisive than useful.

September 8, 2004

Lolita, I will find it eventually!

Of course you will - now that we are coming up on the wet, windy, misty, foggy, nearly always dark and spooky time of year !

I thank you all for your 'high road' advice. I've dismantled the fort for the most part, disabled the cache until I find another spot for it in the park. I look forward to the subject coming up at our next meeting, whether I introduce it or they do. I have a feeling there is a bit of chatter about it amongst the board members. They need something else to do...like geocaching. I'll do my best to represent us well. I'll be nice. Thanks again !

September 8, 2004

one of them has built a fort out of branches blocking access to the path leading to the cache.

Since you mention it's a dog park - Maybe that person has a personal vendetta against dachsunds and other short-legged dogs.

I'd Rather Fight Than Quit ... ?

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

Join the conversation