I completely agree with the comments about "responsibility" and do not think a cache owner has a right to place us in harm's way. If we go with the attitude of I have a "right" to do whatever I want, people will get hurt, geocaching will get a bad name, and we will be banned in more and more places. If someone says in the description it is on private property and they have permission, they should be given the benefit of the doubt that they have permission. If the cache page does not address it, there should be no benefit of the doubt or any assumption. IMHO, cache owner have a "responsibility" to address the situation if the cache is on private property. I also do not think someone being a public servant entitles them to an assumption either. They could simply be mistaken on the ownership of the land. For example, one issue I raised about the hundreds of lame lamppost caches in Nashville was shopping centers are private property and most people assume they are public. Cemeteries are likely the same way. A couple of years ago I was driving through Kansas on my way back from CO. I had my cousin's kid with me and decided to introduce him to geocaching. We stopped in a rest stop on I-70 and headed for the cache GCEA30. The cache was clearly on private property. You had to climb over a barbed wire fence, cross a field, and go get it out of an old well. What a way to introduce someone to geocaching. We did not try for the cache. I was amazed at how many people had climbed over the fence and trespassed to get the cache. I posted a should be archived. The owner, who was a deputy sheriff, told me I just did not understand. He said in KS people climb over fences all the time and go on private property. The cache is still active. People still log it regularly. If you read the logs, you see stuff like Found this one, but it took creative application of property law to justify getting there. Don't get me wrong, I loved doing it. Yes we were not sure either about crossing the barb wire fence, but we seem to be the follower's on this too. So, when mom and dad's everywhere asked, "If they jump off the bridge, are you going to?" I guess we would if it is in the logs!! We too were a little hesitant about crossing over the fence as that just isn't our style. Since there had been other logs we decided to go ahead and if someone said something we would have said we like taking pics of old items since that is what we did anyway. Did the owner get permission to leave this one??? It is a nice hide and the perfect spot away from the others in the area, T/a string of beads,bug and soda caps L/ two puzzles and some hand sanitizer. Thanks! People that don't like to cross fences to get to caches should probably go spend their time at the mall and take the chance of getting shot. At least we won't have to worry about seeing that dude at the Kanopolis or Wilson Lake Caches. Might get a tick. I saw the previous log entry, in Kansas you can't get there without crossing barbed wires fences most of the time! And there is nothing in the cache description that mentions or addresses it being on private property. Here is another example: GC499D. You were given parking coordinates. It was on a golf course and to get to it you had to ignore two big no trespassing signs. It got shut down, but it is shocking how many people trespassed and ignored clear signs. It is stuff like this that will give us a bad name. Jim Bensman "Nature Bats Last" _____ From: geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric East Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 7:52 AM To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Archive this geocache? This cache placer is a public servant, a fire fighter. Public safety is his job so, I tend to believe that this individual has permission. Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: Know Future <mailto:know_future@xxxxxxxx> To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:10 PM Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Archive this geocache? As always, it's great to examine the issue from every point of view, but I have to disagree with the placement of a cache that might knowingly endanger the cacher. 1) I believe we should be able to assume that we can hunt an approved geocache without first checking for permission. Maybe the owner of this cache thought he/she was placing it on public property and was mistaken. If that's the case, I think the owner is responsible for correcting the mistake. He/she should either get permission from the land owner, or move the cache to another location, or achive it. I don't think it's right to try to place the responsibility on the cache hunter for determining if a cache is legal to visit. The cache owner should do that before placing the cache. Or, if the situation changes after the cache is placed, which may have happened here, the owner should make corrections. 2) Whether or not this neighborhood crank/bully really owns the property is almost irrelevant, in my opinion. He's still there, making threats. That's probably not going to change. 3) Discussion, of course, is different than action. We had issues earlier this year with a cacher who took it upon himself to remove caches that were environmentally insensitive, or something like that. If that person had discussed it first with the SLAGA community, in this forum, the matter might have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. IMO it never hurts to discuss any issue relevant to safe and enjoyable geocaching. Please, let's not say we can't discuss an issue here. Finally, geocache owners have rights -- and responsibilities. We can't protect the cache hunter from every possible hazard, nor should we try. I don't believe, however, that we have the right to deliberately expose folks to known safety hazards when they hunt our caches. Thanks for listening, Know Future On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Dan Henke <thunder_monk@xxxxxxxxx> writes: I have read the thread on this cache and would like to offer my opinion for what it is worth. First a lot of people are making an assumption that permission was not sought and received....we don't know whether it has or not but would it not be more appropriate to assume that it HAS been given rather than taking a negative view. It probably should be noted in the cache description that it has been sought and received but it is NOT required that it be and most caches do NOT have that in the description. Secondly from the log I read the irate land owner said "he owns the land around and behind " but he never says he owns the cemetery and chances are he does not...I have run into property owners both in surveying and caching and other activities that will tell you that they own the land in question even though they don't just to keep people away from "their" land. I could sight several examples but that would take way too much space in this email. Third ....I don't like discussions on archiving someone else's cache but as it has been brought up I will say this.....NO ONE forces anyone to do any particular cache...it is entirely up to the searcher and if they take the time to read logs etc on a cache and it looks dangerous to them then they can pass on the cache. If they feel strongly about it then they should contact the owner privately and discuss it with him/her/them but it still should be left up entirely to the owner of the cache and not subject to a discussion on the forums or newsgroups. I don't know about any of you but when a cache of mine is criticized without an email to me first I take it personally.....I try to put a lot of thought and things into each cache and as the owner there may be things about the cache I just don't put into my cache description either because I don't feel it is relevant or because it will make the cache find to easy. I ran into a similar situation on a cache I did a couple of years ago where an irate land owner threatened to call the police because I was "trespassing" on "his" property.....I was not and the cache was on very public land but this owner did not like people around his property so he just told everyone he owned the public park property as well. I sent an email to the cache owner and told him of the situation and he then had the option to make whatever adjustments he wanted to to the description or to archive or whatever he wanted but it was the owner's right to make those changes and not have them dictated to him by someone else. I am a firm believer in the "rights" of the owner to set up his/her cache in whatever manner that is desired otherwise all caches would be the same and the fun of something new and different would be gone. Just because one person or even a group of people don't like the way a cache is done or put together doesn't mean they have the right to demand a change....they do have the right however to do or not to do this cache. Just my humble opinion Dan (Thunder) Know Future <know_future@xxxxxxxx> wrote: Last week Geo Jim described a tense encounter with an unfriendly landowner while hunting the Chapman's Ball (GCKBKH) geocache. I was surprised at the lack of comments in this forum. My question is this: given the possibility that future visitors could be subjected to verbal abuse and even physical violence, doesn't it seem prudent to consider archiving this cache? I'd like to hear your thoughts. Know Future August 7 by Geo Jim (949 found) "Pretty easy find and a nice peaceful place. Thanks for the cache! One of the local landowners came by and told me how he doesn't much care for hunters on his land, people drinking back there and "geo-catchers". I just nodded and said, "Yeah.." at the right times. And thought of "Deliverance" as I tried to hide my 'Geocaching 101' tee shirt.." Note: this doesn't begin to describe the incident -- KF JURA BAR QBBE PYBFRF NABGURE QBBE BCRAF __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com JURA BAR QBBE PYBFRF NABGURE QBBE BCRAF