[GeoStL] Re: Archive this geocache?

  • From: "Jim Bensman" <jbensman1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:20:43 -0500

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


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


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.





----- 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>

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



Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 



GIF image

Other related posts: