We're Geo-criminals!

[+Mule Ears]

Holy Smokes! We recently hiked to a cache in the Coronado National Forest here in southern Arizona. This summer a wildfire scorched a portion of the forest that the trail passes through. We ignored a "Trail Closed" sign at the trailhead, figuring that (1) We're grownups and know to be careful in the burned areas, and (2) It's probably just a ticket; worst case maybe 50 bucks.

 

The penalty isn't $50 or even $100--it's potentially $5000 and/or 6 months in prison! Here is the CNF press release.

 

Has anyone ever bypassed a "Closed" sign enroute to a cache and gotten hit with this kind of fine? Care to comment on the justice of such a huge penalty for such a minor infraction? Wouldn't it make sense to post the huge magnitude of the fine along with the "Closed" sign?

[+ATMA]

Not yet but we will keep this warning in mind for the future.

We were approached by a park official a couple of weekends ago. They did the 100 question thing. Come to find out they had caught 2 sets of hunters earlier in the day. One was with a bow and the other a crossbow! The other set had guns and all of them were hunting in a large park. Go figure.

We decided none of us would act like wild animals out there in fear of being poked or shot.

[+Jeep_Dog]

Has anyone ever bypassed a "Closed" sign enroute to a cache and gotten hit with this kind of fine? Care to comment on the justice of such a huge penalty for such a minor infraction? Wouldn't it make sense to post the huge magnitude of the fine along with the "Closed" sign?

No, I have never bypassed a "closed" sign enroute to a cache. Nor would I consider doing so! Indeed, the only time I would bypass a "closed" sign would be for a matter of life, limb, or eyesight (an emergency).

 

Perhaps I am a lock-step and brainwashed citizen, but I believe in giving unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. Ceasar says do not walk here, I do not walk here, especially if I am geocaching.

 

Geocaches are placed with landmanagers' or owners' permission (tacit or otherwise). The furthest thing from my mind is to violate the directions of the land managers and compromise the cache, and overall, geocaching.

 

What if you had been "caught" bypassing that sign, and appeared before a federal magistrate with your ticket. You are sworn to tell the truth. So, perhaps the dialogue would go something like this:

 

JUDGE: "So, what were you doing in this closed portion of the trail?"

CACHER: "Uh, I was hiking."

JUDGE: "Did you see the sign?"

CACHER: "Uh, yes."

JUDGE: "Then why did you bypass it then?"

CACHER: "I wanted to hike there?" (not wanting to spill the geocaching beans)

JUDGE: "What was your purpose for hiking here, where were you going?"

CACHER: (sworn to tell the truth) "I wanted to get this geocache..."

 

Wonderful. A situation like that would not bide well for the geocaching community and our credibility. I would attempt to avoid situations such as this.

 

Comment on "injustice" for a "minor infraction:" The signs were placed by a federal agency for a reason. In this case, the reason is probably your safety, or perhaps to allow the area to re-grow without disturbance. In this case, the fine makes sense to me.

 

Why does it matter if the maximum fine is published on the sign? The fact remains folks should not walk there, even if the fine is $.01.

[+Team Wildebeest]

I think it would be a good idea to post the fine on the sign, along with what the danger is. The fire itself ,while damaging in a way, isin't the danger. It's the heavy rains which could cause landslides at any time.

 

Without the fines posted I would have gone in, but with that kind of fine, not a chance. And the press relase said the rangers are enforcing it.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Care to comment on the justice of such a huge penalty for such a minor infraction?

 

Yeah, to discourage those that would go ahead and figure that "(1) We're grownups and know to be careful in the burned areas, and (2) It's probably just a ticket; worst case maybe 50 bucks."

[+briansnat]

Has anyone ever bypassed a "Closed" sign enroute to a cache and gotten hit with this kind of fine?

 

No, because breaking the law to find a cache will only give our sport a black eye. Its not good for geocaching when people do this and diesn't help our image among land managers.

[+Sean Connery]

What part of "Trail Closed" don't you understand. As a former federal contract security officer, I find it rermarkable as to how many people don't think the laws, rules, and regulations don't apply to them. Common sense truly is the rarest of all!

 

No, I don't think that maximum possible fine and/or imprisonment are too much. I have worked as a professional paramedic and volunteer SAR team member and rescue diver when I lived in California in the 80's. I witnessed firsthand the stupidity of many folks who put at risk the lives of their rescuers.

 

If you want to take foolish risks and/or break the law, that's between you and your conscience, but be prepared to pay the price. And know that the price may be higher than you expect. Understand that you put at risk this fine sport/hobby/addiction by putting geocaching in a bad light. Now we may see caches banned from being placed in National Forests as well as National Parks.

[ATMouse]

Agreed, don't pass signs that say "No"

 

Steps by Brogan took a while for me to get to becase the trail is closed in the winter and well into the spring.

 

However - I don't always get to caches via trails. Sometimes I am approaching from another direction "Oh, look: this cache is .2 from here" or I am unaware a trail exists.

 

 

I am not giving someone an excuse to be dumb - I've spent enough time in the backcountry and seen people who think nature/wildlife is Disney, fer goshsakes and that risking your life should be rewarded by being rescued and suing the park because there was no sign at the cliffs "Don't stand on the edge and lean forward"!

Edited November 8, 2005 by ATMouse

[CoyoteRed]

No, because breaking the law to find a cache will only give our sport a black eye. Its not good for geocaching when people do this and diesn't help our image among land managers.

Nor does it help to admit this in an open forum for those who would use this against us.

 

[+Mule Ears]

Thanks for the feedback. We're considerably wiser now regarding the penalties and the rationale for trail closures. Still does seem that the closure signs would be more effective and attention-getting if they included the fine/jail-time info.

 

Would that I could lead a life as virtuous and free of deliberate and/or accidental infractions as other geocachers do I'm sure that no one has ever stopped in the breakdown lane to retrieve a guardrail micro or illegally climbed a structure or spelunked in a drain culvert to fetch a cache. Not justifying my scofflawery here, just pointing out that caching offers a lot of opportunities to commit minor infractions of myriad misdemeanor statutes.

 

Now I'm glad that most of the caches on my to-do list are remote bushwhacks, not hikes on regulated trails.

[+Mule Ears]

Nor does it help to admit this in an open forum for those who would use this against us.

 

I suppose that's true in a sense, but the stoning I'm receiving here actually makes the case that cachers are more law-abiding than the general population.

[+Allen_L]

I have been in a National Forest area where off trail hiking is allowed, and came across a trail closed sign. It didn't say why, and the only obvious problem was that in the past few months a storm had dropped a bunch of trees across the trail. At the time I wondered if it would be ok for me to continue on the trail, or should I parallel it off "trail", or should I avoid the area completely. So I think it would be better if a trail closed sign indicated any fine, and preferably why it was closed.

[+mtn-man]

Care to comment on the justice of such a huge penalty for such a minor infraction?

 

Yeah, to discourage those that would go ahead and figure that "(1) We're grownups and know to be careful in the burned areas, and (2) It's probably just a ticket; worst case maybe 50 bucks."

It is also called an "attention-getter". It seems to have gotten the OP's attention.

 

No, I have not crossed a "Trail Closed" sign. Shoot, you think $5,000.00 is a lot? That's chump change. Try a $20,000.00 FINE!!! How about that for an attention-getter.

[+The Leprechauns]

Mule Ears, it was good of you to note the information in your log. Hopefully the cache owner will follow up on this, and temporarily disable the cache if needed.

[+Allen_L]

Ah, but I would consider "Area Closed" to be different from "Trail Closed". Also I noticed that sign did give the fine amount and reason for closure. Which is good.

Edited November 8, 2005 by AllenLacy

[+ChinCache]

You also have to consider that the trail may be closed for wildlife reasons. many trails that I have been on in florida are closed during the rut and brood seasons of alligators. you don't want a mad momma gator protecting her nest to appear out of the reeds a few feet from the trail.

[+mtn-man]

Ah, but I would consider "Area Closed" to be different from "Trail Closed". Also I noticed that sign did give the fine amount and reason for closure. Which is good.

Yeah, a little difference there. That is not actually a maintained trail. It is a "manway". It is not on any map and old hikers in the area know what the ridgeline is called. Considering the @ 150' sheer face drop off on one side and the 60 degree slope on the other side, the manway ran right over the top of the ridgeline pretty much. Putting the "closed" sign at the top where the manway leaves the main trail pretty much closes the whole area.

[+The red-haired witch]

First, keep in mind that those amounts and penalties are "up to". They are not a fixed amount. Which means that, for a first offence, you`ll probably get a much smaller fine, if not just a warning. The maximum amount, and the jail time, are usually for recidivists or when aggravating circumstances are present (e.g. leading a group of 50 kids on that closed trail, going there with a car, bringing your boombox or a pack of hunting dogs in that falcon protection area...)

 

Second, I did hike on a trail that had a "trail closed" ribbon accross it a few months ago. After hiking 4.5 km of a 5 km trail, I ran into that ribbon blocking the section of trail I needed to take to go back to the parking. I could go back 4.5km (over the top of the mountain), take the other (not closed) trail at the fork (going around the mountain) or ignore the ribbon. There were no indications at the start of the trail about any problem with the trail, there appeared to be nothing wrong that I could see... so I went for it and had no problems. Looking at some posters near the map at the end of the trail, I figured what had happened: there was a race the day before, the ribbons where "blocking" the trails so that the people in the race would not take a wrong turn.

 

I agree that they should definitively put some explanation/reason on any "trail closed" signs. "trail closed, high risks of landslide" would probably be more efficient than just "trail closed".

[+Allen_L]

My comment was more about comparing your "Area closed" with the "Trail Closed" here in GA National Forest.

 

Here it was in an area where off trail hiking is permitted. It was just a little sign tacked to a tree which only said "Trail Closed". It didn't give a reason or potential fine. So would it be ok, to go on the trail, or parallel the trail, or should people avoid the entire area, and if so how big is the area to avoid?

[+mtn-man]

So would it be ok, to go on the trail, or parallel the trail, or should people avoid the entire area, and if so how big is the area to avoid?

I would avoid the area and call the Forest Service when I got home if I really wanted to go into the area. With so many places to hike, avoiding one until you were sure seems to be the most prudent action.

[+ibycus]

Have to admit, I have ignored several 'closed trail' signs. Mostly though when the reason for the trail closure is pretty evident, and I think I'm a big enough boy to get around it (or if I come to one, and I'm not sure which side of the closed trail sign I'm meant to be allowed to be on).

 

In the case where it was "I'm a big boy I can take care of myself", the main reason AFAIK for the trail being closed was that we'd had flooding recently (actually it said on the sign 'due to flooding', and some of the bridges were washed out. Others were tilted at strange angles. The closure was I think more of a legal thing than an actual safety thing (park inside the city, don't want people to sue them if they fall and break their necks).

These signs all stayed up well after there was any real danger in the area, and even worst case scenaria would have been perhaps a twisted ankle, or maybe a broken bone if you were supremely unlucky.

[+Mule Ears]

The Leprechauns said:

Mule Ears, it was good of you to note the information in your log. Hopefully the cache owner will follow up on this, and temporarily disable the cache if needed.

 

Thanks. The cache can remain enabled because most cachers drive to it via a 4WD road from the opposite direction. The owner gives directions for the drive-up approach on the cache page. So there is a viable alternative until the trail is reopened (after inspection and felling of any trailside widowmakers and initiation of anti-erosion measures).

 

A sidelight to the discussion is that I had been on the same trail about a month ago. Trails in the area were originally closed July 25th, but this particular trail had no closed sign as of a month ago. So I arrived at the trailhead for the more recent hike--the subject of this thread--with the expectation that the trail had been reopened post-fire. Yes, it would have been more thorough to check the CNF web site before I went, but the chronology led me to believe that the all-clear had been given.

 

Once I arrived and saw the "closed" sign, I beat that against my recent knowledge of the trail's condition and made my (terrible, shameful, unlawful) decision. I know how unforgiving this forum is, but I thought a little background might help restore my tarnished reputation.

[+Map Only]

If you give up on the idea that publicly owned land should be managed for long-term preservation of the enviroment and for the public's enjoyment, the actions of land managers and enforcement personell is a lot easier to understand. Best of luck to you.

 

-Map only

[+Silny Jako Bek]

Clearly Mule Ears should be taken out and drawn and quartered....

[+briansnat]

Clearly Mule Ears should be taken out and drawn and quartered....

That's a terrible thing to say. Have you ever been drawn and quartered? Its not a pleasant experience.

[rynd]

Perhaps I am a lock-step and brainwashed citizen, but I believe in giving unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. Ceasar says do not walk here, I do not walk here, especially if I am geocaching.

 

"giving unto Cesar what is Cesar's"

It's always been my understanding that WE ARE CESAR. You know what is truly sad is that I am terrified to go into the Forrest: not because of the animals, not because of other people, but because I may accidental break one of the Kings rules.

[+Mule Ears]

Silny Jako Bek said:

Clearly Mule Ears should be taken out and drawn and quartered...

 

I will immediately surrender myself to the nearest Drawing and Quartering facility for conversion from lawbreaking scum into beneficial, wholesome Soylent Green.

[Trinity's Crew]

Perhaps a trip to the glue factory would be more appropriate in this case.

[+Mule Ears]

Perhaps a trip to the glue factory would be more appropriate in this case.

[+M-T-P]

Just bushwhack.

[+mtn-man]

Perhaps a trip to the glue factory would be more appropriate in this case.

 

I think we can let you off easy. You can just pay the fine to your local reviewer. Since all reviewers are mtn-man, feel free to hit my paypal account.

 

And... I accept your apology.

[+Jeep_Dog]

Once I arrived and saw the "closed" sign, I beat that against my recent knowledge of the trail's condition and made my (terrible, shameful, unlawful) decision. I know how unforgiving this forum is, but I thought a little background might help restore my tarnished reputation.

Easy, now, Mule. Note in my reply, I merely answered your question as to what I would do in that situation, and passed no judgement on your actions. In fact, a majority of the replies here did exactly the same, replying what they would do, and not judging your experience. This particular forum contributor did not require "forgiveness," nor was your reputation tarnished. I am not perfect, and have made mistakes, yet know clearly what I would have done in the situation you described. Nor do I think this makes me a "better" person or cacher...

 

However, if the shoe fits that well, Cinderella Ears, then by all means wear it...

[+Jeep_Dog]

I think we can let you off easy. You can just pay the fine to your local reviewer. Since all reviewers are mtn-man, feel free to hit my paypal account.

Greedy, Spartacus. Very greedy.

 

Sparta-who?

[Trinity's Crew]

Greedy, Spartacus.  Very greedy.

 

Spartac us? You don't even know us!

 

Edit spelling

Edited November 8, 2005 by Trinity's Crew

[+Mule Ears]

Perhaps a trip to the glue factory would be more appropriate in this case.

 

I think we can let you off easy. You can just pay the fine to your local reviewer. Since all reviewers are mtn-man, feel free to hit my paypal account.

 

And... I accept your apology.

No problemo. I'm expecting a big wire transfer from Nigeria any day now; I'll move some of it to your PayPal account

 

Back on topic for a moment: I suppose the excessive maximum penalties reflect (as one commenter mentioned) an allowance to throw the book at a violator when there are aggravating circumstances. But I'll bet they're also meant to work on the hazard-severity-vs-hazard-probability calculation that people make. In other words, to cause a potential violator to think, "They're not likely to catch me, but if they do it's a BIG fine and jail time..."

 

If this is the justification, it can lead to real injustice if the probability of detection increases (additional rangers, enforcement push, no leniency/extenuating circumstances). If this is a good idea, why not make all crimes punishable by drawing and quartering?

[+AuntieWeasel]

I saw a posted, closed section of trail recently that was about seventy feet long, running parallel to and about fifty feet North of the trail we were supposed to use. You could stand at one end and easily sight down to the other, with nothing obviously unusual about it. Most peculiar.

 

Only thing I could think was, somebody's sense of the tidy was offended by having an unnecessary section of trail. Sort of like an elective appendectomy.

[+dmnrec]

As someone who works in a parks department, we sometimes close trails due to conditions...such as after a heavy rain...to prevent further damage to the trails and also for safety reasons...some of our trails have 80 ft. drop offs and no fences...so we expect everyone to respect the closings, but we don't fine anyone. I also post those closings in the state website and will let cache owners know about it if it affects their caches.

[+Cow Spots]

I will immediately surrender myself to the nearest Drawing and Quartering facility for conversion from lawbreaking scum into beneficial, wholesome Soylent Green.

Good. My vending machine at work's getting a little low.

 

[+Mule Ears]

Uggh. That's absolutely disgusting. They actually have a Pepsi machine?

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Uggh. That's absolutely disgusting. They actually have a Pepsi machine?

[+mtn-man]

I also post those closings in the state website and will let cache owners know about it if it affects their caches.

Boy, it would be great if everyone did this. That's pretty cool.

 

Mule Ears, did you take a look-see at their web site by chance? The $20,000.00 one I posted earlier was never posted on the Smoky Mountain NPS site as far as I have seen.

[+Mule Ears]

I also post those closings in the state website and will let cache owners know about it if it affects their caches.

Boy, it would be great if everyone did this. That's pretty cool.

 

Mule Ears, did you take a look-see at their web site by chance? The $20,000.00 one I posted earlier was never posted on the Smoky Mountain NPS site as far as I have seen.

Yes, belatedly. After I'd logged the cache and was looking online for other caches nearby. I saw a log that made mention of the $5000 fine. That's when I looked at the Coronado National Forest web site, and saw the list of trail closures. Next to that was a link to a press release in PDF format--the link in my original post.

 

So I suppose I could've found out about the closure, and perhaps the penalty, if I'd gone to the web site first. Having hiked the trail a month before (after the fire, and after the rainy season), I wasn't really on the alert.

[+clearpath]

Boy, Mule Ears ... you sure know how to get people riled up. Hehehe. Wasn't it Martha Stewart that said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

[+Mule Ears]

Boy, Mule Ears ... you sure know how to get people riled up.  Hehehe.  Wasn't it Martha Stewart that said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." 

You got that right. Reinforces my preference for bushwhack hikes.

 

An earlier post expressed the opinion that discussing my law-breaking in an open forum poses a danger to Geocaching; that land managers would use this incident to make the case that the activity is undesirable. What do you think?

[+clearpath]

An earlier post expressed the opinion that discussing my law-breaking in an open forum poses a danger to Geocaching; that land managers would use this incident to make the case that the activity is undesirable. What do you think?

Thats a good question ... I would say that an incident like yours (its almost like trespassing) has the potential for raising criticism. An isolated case is unlikely to get too much mileage. However, it only takes one small stone to bring down a giant. I would use discression on deciding what 'laws' to break. Then I would never tell ayone.

[+Mule Ears]

An earlier post expressed the opinion that discussing my law-breaking in an open forum poses a danger to Geocaching; that land managers would use this incident to make the case that the activity is undesirable. What do you think?

Thats a good question ... I would say that an incident like yours (its almost like trespassing) has the potential for raising criticism. An isolated case is unlikely to get too much mileage. However, it only takes one small stone to bring down a giant. I would use discression on deciding what 'laws' to break. Then I would never tell ayone.

Good advice. I started the thread primarily because I was shocked at the magnitude of the penalties. This revelation will certainly have a deterrent effect on me. Fortunately, most of the really interesting places out here don't have any trails, facilities or supervision whatsoever.

[+Jeep_Dog]

An earlier post expressed the opinion that discussing my law-breaking in an open forum poses a danger to Geocaching; that land managers would use this incident to make the case that the activity is undesirable. What do you think?

I think the crushing and dismayed response to your situation would indicate to land managers/owners the community's desire to tread lightly and properly utilize the land. If I was a land manager, I would be quite impressed reading this thread. I would be impressed with:

 

1) The overall community's assessment that obeying by guidelines, signs, and even laws is necessary in utilizing the land;

 

2) The geocaching community knowledge of rules, regulations, and where to find them on the web demonstrated through the numerous links in this thread;

 

3) The quick recognition of the OP (Mule) in owning up to actions, and a statement along the lines of "gee, I will not be doing THAT again."

 

4) The overall respect for land the geocaching community generally embodies.

[+briansnat]

Boy, Mule Ears ... you sure know how to get people riled up. Hehehe. Wasn't it Martha Stewart that said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I thought that was Richard Nixon.

[+Mule Ears]

An earlier post expressed the opinion that discussing my law-breaking in an open forum poses a danger to Geocaching; that land managers would use this incident to make the case that the activity is undesirable. What do you think?

I think the crushing and dismayed response to your situation would indicate to land managers/owners the community's desire to tread lightly and properly utilize the land. If I was a land manager, I would be quite impressed reading this thread. I would be impressed with:

 

1) The overall community's assessment that obeying by guidelines, signs, and even laws is necessary in utilizing the land;

 

2) The geocaching community knowledge of rules, regulations, and where to find them on the web demonstrated through the numerous links in this thread;

 

3) The quick recognition of the OP (Mule) in owning up to actions, and a statement along the lines of "gee, I will not be doing THAT again."

 

4) The overall respect for land the geocaching community generally embodies.

Thank you, Jeep Dog. I think it's dangerous for a group to think that it must hide its dirty laundry to avoid outside criticism. When the dirt is eventually revealed the secrecy or evasion makes it seem all the more sinister. And in the meantime, the group hasn't benefitted from the errors of its members.

 

That said, my take-away thoughts are:

• I believe the (maximum) penalty is excessive
  
• But the penalty will deter me from bypassing "Trail Closed" signs
  
• It will also deter me from using developed trails at all whenever possible
  
• I'm unconvinced of a moral dimension to violating an administrative ruling (trail closure)
  
• But I can see that such a violation could damage the reputation of Geocaching*
  

(*You're not Geocaching until you're within 10 meters of the cache with the GPS turned on. Up till then you're driving, hiking, climbing, swimming, biking... Keep this principle in mind if captured and interrogated.)

 

If land managers are reading this thread, I'd also suggest that trail closure notices provide more information as to rationale and consequences.

[+clearpath]

(*You're not Geocaching until you're within 10 meters of the cache with the GPS turned on. Up till then you're driving, hiking, climbing, swimming, biking... Keep this principle in mind if captured and interrogated.)

Very good point ... I like it!