[Scubasonic]

J the Goat, on 08 April 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

Scubasonic, on 08 April 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

fizzymagic, on 08 April 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

The park staff in this park are new to geocaching and were hiding their first caches;

Then someone with Geocaching Experience should have advised the CO that they needed to be specific in the description as to what was going on. The fault I feel lies with the CO.

Not if the FTFers entered a restricted area or didn't pay the required fee. Then it lies on them. Rebuttle?

So we know That every entrance to this area is posted? So there is no chance they could have missed the postings?

[slukster]

fizzymagic, on 08 April 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

slukster, on 08 April 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Besides the literature that you receive because you already signed up as a special group, does it say anywhere else in the park that this area is open only to special groups?

Wow, you guys are really doing a great job of making FTF hounds look bad!

The literature in question is the literature that everyone receives when they pay the required fee to enter the park.

Perhaps our FTF hounds didn't see the literature because they entered the park without paying the fee? I predict that you will claim that this is somehow still not their fault, though to be honest I can't predict what the excuse will be this time.

Ah, I misunderstood who has to pay to get in. I thought it was only the "groups only" section of the park that required the fee and gave the literature about the restricted area.

That brings me to a a possible similar situation at my local park. I rode my bike down this one set of trails a couple of times, always entering from a side trail, not the main entrance. I was not familiar with the park before biking there and didn't know there were any rules against mountain biking. The last time I biked there a hiker called out to me that there was no biking in the park. While it is possible that the county website has a listing of rules and regulations for all county parks, the only trail in and out of the park that I used had no signs. Now that it was brought to my attention, I no longer bike in that park. Do you have to pay to use the park if you don't drive in? Any possibility that these cachers enter the park from a side trail, not knowing of the fees and restricted area? I know, a long shot.

[cache_test_dummies]

Regardless of what happened, this was clearly not a good PR day for geocaching in general.

But I don't think we have enough information to know if this situation is truly the result of the grievous actions of one or more overly aggressive FTF hounds, or simply an unfortunate perfect storm of circumstances.

I am familiar with a number of state parks where you can quite legally and legitimately access the park without passing through the main "Pay Here and Pick Up Your Park Brochure" gates. Somebody who received notification of new caches (due to an unintentional early release of the cache publications), who normally and naturally would gain access to the park through such entrances, could easily innocently ruin the special day that the event organizers (who could not have thought through every conceivable scenario) envisioned when they wrote up and submitted the caches.

I'm not saying that is what happened - I'm saying that such a situation is completely possible. And without more details, I'm going to withhold judgement until we know more.

[slukster]

cache_test_dummies, on 08 April 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

I am familiar with a number of state parks where you can quite legally and legitimately access the park without passing through the main "Pay Here and Pick Up Your Park Brochure" gates. Somebody who received notification of new caches (due to an unintentional early release of the cache publications), who normally and naturally would gain access to the park through such entrances, could easily innocently ruin the special day that the event organizers (who could not have thought through every conceivable scenario) envisioned when they wrote up and submitted the caches.

This is what I was thinking when I asked "Do you have to pay to use the park if you don't drive in?" If not, then the question of whether there are any posted rules about the restricted area may be valid.

This post has been edited by slukster: 08 April 2012 - 06:05 PM

[6NoisyHikers]

cache_test_dummies, on 08 April 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

Regardless of what happened, this was clearly not a good PR day for geocaching in general.

But I don't think we have enough information to know if this situation is truly the result of the grievous actions of one or more overly aggressive FTF hounds, or simply an unfortunate perfect storm of circumstances.

I am familiar with a number of state parks where you can quite legally and legitimately access the park without passing through the main "Pay Here and Pick Up Your Park Brochure" gates. Somebody who received notification of new caches (due to an unintentional early release of the cache publications), who normally and naturally would gain access to the park through such entrances, could easily innocently ruin the special day that the event organizers (who could not have thought through every conceivable scenario) envisioned when they wrote up and submitted the caches.

I'm not saying that is what happened - I'm saying that such a situation is completely possible. And without more details, I'm going to withhold judgement until we know more.

+1 It is not to judge the situation, and it is certainly not possible to rectify what has happened. Scouting out the potential issues only helps us to learn better next time.

[addisonbr]

fizzymagic, on 08 April 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Apparently, you (and several others in this thread) believe that unless access permissions are explicitly stated on the cache page, geocachers have no responsibility to know or obey the rules for a park. In this view, as soon as a cache is available, cachers are free to go get it however and whenever they want, and are under no obligation to obey any park rules not listed on the cache page.

I think you might be overstating my response just a bit. I'm just pointing out that I didn't see anything on the cache page saying that the caches are restricted access. If, when I got there and paid my admission I was handed literature that says that I'm not allowed in that part of the park, that would certainly change things.

I see here a situation where there are a ton of opportunities for failure that may have worked together.

If what you're saying is true, that there are caches that are listed here in a park (or a section of a park) that is not actually open to the public, I really do think that the CO should edit the cache page to reflect this. It doesn't absolve any FTF hounds who break the law. But as a CO I think there is a responsibility to mention things like "This cache has been placed in a restricted area that the public is not allowed to access without express pre-approved permission."

FTF hounds who willfully ignore the law are wrong. But CO's should still post when their caches are located in strictly restricted areas that the public isn't allowed to access. Long after the FTF hounds have moved on to the next publication, there will still be other cachers who rely on the cache page for important information like this. What does it hurt the CO to include it?

[Encino]

fizzymagic, on 08 April 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

slukster, on 08 April 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Besides the literature that you receive because you already signed up as a special group, does it say anywhere else in the park that this area is open only to special groups?

Wow, you guys are really doing a great job of making FTF hounds look bad!

The literature in question is the literature that everyone receives when they pay the required fee to enter the park.

Perhaps our FTF hounds didn't see the literature because they entered the park without paying the fee? I predict that you will claim that this is somehow still not their fault, though to be honest I can't predict what the excuse will be this time.

There is a lot of supposition here. Do you know they entered the park without paying the fee? I've looked at the Hollister Hills SVRA website and was unable to locate anything about restricted access to any specific part of the park. Heck, the Geocaching event they put on isn't even listed in their events calendar. The page does state the park is open from dawn to dusk 7 days a week. The fee schedule has daily or yearly passes - maybe the ones to went after the caches had yearly passes? Until we hear (if we do) from these FTF hounds, all we are getting is one side of the story. I love how people want to jump in and find somebody guilty without all the evidence.

[DanOCan]

I could certainly imagine if I had cache info at hand that shows the cache was placed by the parks staff that they were giving me permission to be in a restricted-access area of the park. I would make the bold assumption if the parks staff didn't want me in that area they wouldn't place caches there.

[bflentje]

fizzymagic, on 07 April 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

A cautionary FTF tale for your delectation....

Today I went to a geocaching event put on by the state parks department at an off-road vehicle park. The wonderful park staff had put out over 25 new geocaches and around 40 cachers showed up to participate in a fun event in an area of the park that is brand-new and still closed to the public.

The cachers gathered, heard a briefing from the park staff, and set out to explore and find the new caches. There was some excitement that everybody would have a chance to FTF one of the new caches.

Except that it turns out that a couple of local FTF hounds had entered the off-limits part of the park before the event and grabbed all the FTFs for themselves. These cachers did not participate in the event in any way.

The park staff was livid. Here they had an event that was partly to help build relationships with local geocachers, only to have their new caches logged illegally by FTF hounds entering a closed area without a permit and without paying the required entrance fee.

It gave geocaching a black eye with the park staff; I can only hope that the appreciation and response of the legitimate community will be enough to overcome it.

So next time you claim that FTF hounds are "just playing the game their way" keep this story in mind.

If there was illegal activity? That's a shame. If the cachers did nothing illegal, TOO BAD.

The part I don't get is why park staff is hiding caches in an "off limits" section of the park. Me thinks this is a "too bad" situation. If you can't handle being STF, then get out of the FTF race.

[Glenn]

bflentje, on 09 April 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:

If there was illegal activity? That's a shame. If the cachers did nothing illegal, TOO BAD.

I agree.

bflentje, on 09 April 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:

The part I don't get is why park staff is hiding caches in an "off limits" section of the park. Me thinks this is a "too bad" situation. If you can't handle being STF, then get out of the FTF race.

Lots of parks have open hours and closed hours. Also parks put areas off limits for various reason. Sometimes it's safety related. Sometimes it's to limit the impact of humans on the environment. Whatever the case, a land owner or land manager doesn't have to allow geocaching on the land they manage. If someone doesn't follow the rules that the land manager has set then there is a risk that rest of us won't be able to use that land for geocaching.

[StarBrand]

I strongly suspect these FTF finders knew the rules of the area, knew of the event, knew completely what they were doing. But that is all that mattered - being the FTF. Just based on some of my experiences.

At any rate - we now look really bad as a group - and that is sort of the point lost to many in this thread.

[Luckless]

I'm not convinced the FTF hounds did anything wrong.
First to find?- Maybe they were honestly FTF if the coordinates were published and then retracted. We had that happen once here at an event only in this case the guy who went to look for the cache didn't find it because it hadn't been placed. The people who owned the property did have fun watching this guy going crazy looking for a cache that wasn't there. The cacher didn't think he was doing anything wrong. There was no mention of the cache being an event cache in the listing. Usually the event planner waits to publish her event caches at the same time of the event or later, but this was a mix up. Either she failed to tell the reviewer or the reviewer published it at the wrong time. It was not the FTF seeker's fault.
Tresspassing? -Our state parks have a certain time when admission is required, but come early or later after that time and you can enter the park for no fee and no one is manning the entrance booth. If the FTF hounds were in the park when an admission fee was required or they snuck into an area clearly marked as off limits then maybe they should be charged for tresspassing, but you're going to have to prove that. (I always tried to hide my caches in the park far enough away from park boundaries so people couldn't just park outside the park and run in to grab them because I knew that action would reflect badly on geocaching to the park staff.)
It sounds like mistakes were made, but hopefully you can learn from them and hopefully everyone had a good time with the camaraderie of the event.

[jellis]

Encino, on 08 April 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

DragonsWest, on 08 April 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

First: The Hudner Property is restricted access.
Second: There were signs and a sensible person would inquire.

Choosing to ignore both points is Willful Ignorance. There's clearly an event going on and checking into the event would be the right thing to do.

So the caches are located in an area not available to all cachers? I wouldn't have stopped at an "Event" if I was out caching. I don't do events. If it was published and no restrictions are listed on the page or at the cache site, I don't see an issue. Now if the caches are located in an area that is restricted and posted, that is a different story (and issue).

Did you read the previous posts? Those cachers were not part of the event and should not have entered. As I mentioned they realized what they had done and ended up NOT logging the FTFs though they did sign them first.

This post has been edited by jellis: 09 April 2012 - 06:47 AM

[4wheelin_fool]

Encino, on 08 April 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

There is a lot of supposition here. Do you know they entered the park without paying the fee? I've looked at the Hollister Hills SVRA website and was unable to locate anything about restricted access to any specific part of the park. Heck, the Geocaching event they put on isn't even listed in their events calendar. The page does state the park is open from dawn to dusk 7 days a week. The fee schedule has daily or yearly passes - maybe the ones to went after the caches had yearly passes? Until we hear (if we do) from these FTF hounds, all we are getting is one side of the story. I love how people want to jump in and find somebody guilty without all the evidence.

The FTFers behavior is rather predictable, and the schedule of park access is a bit confusing. It seems that lack of communication is the real problem here and perhaps the cache pages and park literature should have been more clearer. The majority of FTF hounds will not break rules if they know their log will be deleted.

This post has been edited by 4wheelin_fool: 09 April 2012 - 06:55 AM

[JesandTodd]

StarBrand, on 09 April 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

I strongly suspect these FTF finders knew the rules of the area, knew of the event, knew completely what they were doing. But that is all that mattered - being the FTF. Just based on some of my experiences.

At any rate - we now look really bad as a group - and that is sort of the point lost to many in this thread.

I agree with all of this. We've all seen so many people do anything and everything to get an FTF.

I also agree, that no matter what we say on here.. in this community geocaching received a black eye. and allll for the almighty FTF.

And has anybody ever seen a published cache retraction before? Did it not cross their minds that the retraction may mean something? They found quite a number of caches without taking notice of that?

[Luckless]

jellis, on 09 April 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

Encino, on 08 April 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

DragonsWest, on 08 April 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

First: The Hudner Property is restricted access.
Second: There were signs and a sensible person would inquire.

Choosing to ignore both points is Willful Ignorance. There's clearly an event going on and checking into the event would be the right thing to do.

So the caches are located in an area not available to all cachers? I wouldn't have stopped at an "Event" if I was out caching. I don't do events. If it was published and no restrictions are listed on the page or at the cache site, I don't see an issue. Now if the caches are located in an area that is restricted and posted, that is a different story (and issue).

Did you read the previous posts? Those cachers were not part of the event and should not have entered. As I mentioned they realized what they had done and ended up NOT logging the FTFs though they did sign them first.

Perhaps these caches that were in restricted areas should not have been published and instead just used for the event- making a special announcement that under normal circumstances this area was restricted. Publishing them opens them up the general public which is liable to create more problems.

[Glenn]

Luckless, on 09 April 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

jellis, on 09 April 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

Encino, on 08 April 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

DragonsWest, on 08 April 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

First: The Hudner Property is restricted access.
Second: There were signs and a sensible person would inquire.

Choosing to ignore both points is Willful Ignorance. There's clearly an event going on and checking into the event would be the right thing to do.

So the caches are located in an area not available to all cachers? I wouldn't have stopped at an "Event" if I was out caching. I don't do events. If it was published and no restrictions are listed on the page or at the cache site, I don't see an issue. Now if the caches are located in an area that is restricted and posted, that is a different story (and issue).

Did you read the previous posts? Those cachers were not part of the event and should not have entered. As I mentioned they realized what they had done and ended up NOT logging the FTFs though they did sign them first.

Perhaps these caches that were in restricted areas should not have been published and instead just used for the event- making a special announcement that under normal circumstances this area was restricted. Publishing them opens them up the general public which is liable to create more problems.

I'm not sure what you mean by publishing them opens them up the general public. According to da rulez. "All local laws and documented land management policies apply. This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it."

The way I read that is that if there are park hours you shouldn't be inside the park after hours. If there are other documented restriction then everyone needs to follow those restrictions or risk, at least on the geocaching.com website, a TOS violation.

[DragonsWest]

Luckless, on 09 April 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

jellis, on 09 April 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

Encino, on 08 April 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

DragonsWest, on 08 April 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

First: The Hudner Property is restricted access.
Second: There were signs and a sensible person would inquire.

Choosing to ignore both points is Willful Ignorance. There's clearly an event going on and checking into the event would be the right thing to do.

So the caches are located in an area not available to all cachers? I wouldn't have stopped at an "Event" if I was out caching. I don't do events. If it was published and no restrictions are listed on the page or at the cache site, I don't see an issue. Now if the caches are located in an area that is restricted and posted, that is a different story (and issue).

Did you read the previous posts? Those cachers were not part of the event and should not have entered. As I mentioned they realized what they had done and ended up NOT logging the FTFs though they did sign them first.

Perhaps these caches that were in restricted areas should not have been published and instead just used for the event- making a special announcement that under normal circumstances this area was restricted. Publishing them opens them up the general public which is liable to create more problems.

OK, I'll have to spell this out all over again. The area of dispute is for Groups. Like many state parks, there's an Entrance or Day-Use fee for bringing a vehicle into a park. So any caches in State Parks are available, should you pay the fee. The area for which the cachers paid an entrance fee for is ONLY the 4x4 area South of the road. The Group area your day use fee is not applicable for (Fizzymagic has already stated this) The Hudner Property is for groups and the group was the event hosted by the park staff (users of this area had to Register to be allowed entry.)

Park staff did an amazing thing for geocachers who want to use the area for group outtings or for members of groups who may be introduced to geocaching to find.

This really is a cautionary tale -- slow down cowpoke! Scout it out and know what fees and or restrictions apply to areas where geocaches are placed. Just because there's a cache there doesn't mean you can just stroll on in.

There is yet another section of the SVRA which is open only to Dirt Bikes and ATVs, with several nice caches in. You are not allowed to hike, bike or take a 4x4 into this area. So there is yet another example of caches which are placed which you must access by appropriate means. Violation of the park rules to make finds and play dumb later or claiming all caches must be available to all geocachers is no defense.

This post has been edited by DragonsWest: 09 April 2012 - 07:45 AM

[The A-Team]

JesandTodd, on 09 April 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

And has anybody ever seen a published cache retraction before? Did it not cross their minds that the retraction may mean something? They found quite a number of caches without taking notice of that?

Until a couple of months ago, I didn't have my notifications set to alert me to retractions. The only times I had seen them before that was if I was a bit late bringing up the page for a new cache, or if I re-checked a recently-published cache page, at which point I would encounter the "This cache hasn't been published yet" message.
Hypothetical, and very likely situation:
Cacher sees a new cache come out, brings up the cache page right away, downloads the GPX, and heads out. At this point, they have little need to check the cache page again, and if they don't have their notifications set for retractions, they will have no idea if the cache gets retracted until they get home and attempt to log it.

[6NoisyHikers]

StarBrand, on 09 April 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

At any rate - we now look really bad as a group - and that is sort of the point lost to many in this thread.

You are absolutely right that Geocaching as a whole looks bad based on this situation.

This falls under the same heading as tresspassing, bridge hides, bomb squad and police call-outs. It is easy to look bad to those who aren't familiar with what we do - especially if others within the group make a public ruckus about it.

We don't have the FTFers side of the story - only the poor character reference given by other posters (not that this type of reference doesn't hold water in some cases). And I believe that the lack of information on the cache pages was one of the elements that created this situation. At the very least it does not allow for the "see the info was here all along and you chose to ignore it" reprimand afterward.

What needs to happen now is a continuance of solid relationship building with the parks staff, a huge show of appreciation for their efforts and acceptance of our hobby, and a downplay of the drama. The appearance of level-headedness [] will go a long way towards damage control.

[DragonsWest]

6NoisyHikers, on 09 April 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

StarBrand, on 09 April 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

At any rate - we now look really bad as a group - and that is sort of the point lost to many in this thread.

You are absolutely right that Geocaching as a whole looks bad based on this situation.

This falls under the same heading as tresspassing, bridge hides, bomb squad and police call-outs. It is easy to look bad to those who aren't familiar with what we do - especially if others within the group make a public ruckus about it.

We don't have the FTFers side of the story - only the poor character reference given by other posters (not that this type of reference doesn't hold water in some cases). And I believe that the lack of information on the cache pages was one of the elements that created this situation. At the very least it does not allow for the "see the info was here all along and you chose to ignore it" reprimand afterward.

What needs to happen now is a continuance of solid relationship building with the parks staff, a huge show of appreciation for their efforts and acceptance of our hobby, and a downplay of the drama. The appearance of level-headedness [] will go a long way towards damage control.

I think lesson learned by the parks is to keep the gate locked and perhaps post a sentry to keep early birds and those who would be otherwise wayward from being so. That's one thing to take away from this.

[Corp Of Discovery]

Sad to say but I'm not really surprised by this at all. People regularly go into the forest preserves around here after hours to grab FTFs.

[DragonsWest]

Corp Of Discovery, on 09 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Sad to say but I'm not really surprised by this at all. People regularly go into the forest preserves around here after hours to grab FTFs.

People do some very stupid, very dangerous things in the pursuits of caches, not only FTFs, though the FTF obsession is something everyone who collects them should take some time to re-evaluate. It's a good thing to have a hobby and to have fun, but that's only to the point where it violates laws and is used in some mean-spirited way to rub in the nose of others.

Not too hard to find threads over the years which cover some of the darnedest things people have done caching. I temper my entusiasm and endeavour to keep it sane and safe.

[Ambrosia]

The problem with sensitive areas is that people always have the potential to just download coordinates and go. I'm not going to comment on whether or not these cachers intentionally broke the rules, as I cannot say. But in sensitive locations (like people's homes or schools), I let the CO know that even with info on the cache page there will inevitably be someone who finds it at odd hours, etc. If the property owner/manager can't handle this, then they shouldn't place the cache there. Once coordinates are posted on the internet, you can't really control how or when those people find the cache.

[Gamaliel]

Even if we were all familiar with the park and the cachers involved, I doubt we'd all come to an agreement on what actually happened here and whether it was a result of deliberate rulebreaking or just general incompetence. Either way, the only foolproof way to avoid this is to not publish caches in advance of the event.

[Clan Riffster]

jellis, on 09 April 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

Did you read the previous posts?

I read some theories that looked more like sour grapes than anything substantial.
Are those the posts you are referring to?

jellis, on 09 April 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

Those cachers were not part of the event and should not have entered.

That's an odd sentiment. Are you talking about the first "Found It" log on the cache pages? In reading it, I'm not seeing anything untoward. Rather, i see someone armed with coordinates, who paid their entrance fee, then went geocaching.

"When these new caches were published Werdave and I thought we'd head down this way to join the party. We got to the park shortly after it opened and headed into the hills. When paying for the park entrance we saw a sign about a geocaching event? That confused us a bit because we didn't see a GC number for an event? But we knew any event would start later than the park opened so we hit the trails. What a beautiful morning to be caching. Lots of cows and sunshine. Many thanks for placing all the new caches! tftc #9355/#1408"

Sounds like they had fun.

I know Fizzy mentioned that there was some information about the new section of park in a flyer that the staff handed out to folks entering the park? I can't find that flyer anywhere on the Internet, though this may be the fault of my poor Googling skills. I would like to know exactly what the flyer said before crumpling up my kilt in a fit of pique.

I would also like to know if the area supposedly closed prior to this event was posted as such when the FTF arrived. Looking at my many previous visits to parks I was already experienced with, I can say with no regret that I seldom read the stuff they hand me when I pay my entrance fee. Generally, I tell them to keep it, to save the paper. Is that wrong? Am I really under some obligation to read park flyers? If they are experienced with that park, isn't it possible that the FTF assumed, like I have hundreds of times, that the flyer didn't contain anything they needed to know?

I know I'm on the other side of the country, so there may be something I'm missing, but I really don't see that the FTF did anything wrong. They arrived at a park open to the public, before the sour grapes crew arrived, and they showed up armed with several sets of coordinates. They paid their fee and went hunting, just as I might have done in their shoes.

Trying to paint them as villains because they scored the FTF seems kinda churlish.

jellis, on 09 April 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

As I mentioned they realized what they had done and ended up NOT logging the FTFs though they did sign them first.

Isn't that proof that they were FTF?

[Clan Riffster]

DragonsWest, on 09 April 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

I think lesson learned by the parks is to keep the gate locked and perhaps post a sentry to keep early birds and those who would be otherwise wayward from being so. That's one thing to take away from this.

But Fizzy already stipulated that the FTF guys got the flyer. Presumably they got it when they paid their entrance fee. I work hand in hand with many park managers, and I don't know any that would accept an entrance fee and hand out flyers when the park was closed.

Is it safe to assume that the FTF group entered the park after it was open?

If so, wouldn't any hypothetical gates be unlocked, and any hypothetical sentries off duty?

Unless, of course, the new section of park had a different opening time than the rest of the park? If so, I'm assuming this was posted somewhere other than a flyer which they knew many visitors would not read. Perhaps there were prominently displayed signs at the off road entrance saying no access until 10:00am, or such? Google Earth Street View, (which admittedly is a fairly old image), just shows a steel pipe gate across the off road section. No signs visible. Is that gate still there? Was it open when the rest of the park was opened? Did the FTF group drive around the gate?

There are just too many unanswered questions.

[Wildbun]

Since I was there on Saturday I thought I’d add my 2 cents:
Hollister Hills opened to 4x4 vehicles in the Upper Ranch area before the geocaching event started. The folks who went after the new caches paid the entrance fee for the Upper Ranch and proceeded to the Hudner Property instead, which is only available for use by organized groups, and was to be used for the geocaching event later that morning. The gate was probably unlocked early so the organizers could be at Area 5 to register the geocachers and give their orientation before everyone headed over. I’m sure the last thing they expected was to have cache bandits come in before the event and sign all the logs. I don’t know if the FTF hounds deliberately trespassed to get to the caches or if they didn’t know what they were doing, but in the end they paid a hefty price for the mere privilege of having their GC handle first on the log book: They neglected to register at the event and sign the waiver, which might be against state park policy. They missed out on the fun game with the cards and logbooks, the free lunch, and the raffle with some very generous prizes. I think they also burned a few bridges in the geocaching community.

[The A-Team]

We will probably never get the full, true story of what happened here, but there's one thing that seems clear to me, based on all the information here.
The park has an entrance fee and rules for most of the park. There is also a section of this park that has an additional fee and additional rules. From what everyone has said so far, it doesn't sound like any information about those additonal fees and rules is posted at the entrance to this area. To me, the park managers are just asking for misuse of that area by not doing so.

As an example, there's a provinicial campground near me that has 2 sections. The overall, general use campground, and the group site. There are very clear signs at the entrance to the group site detailing the additional fees and rules for its use.

Now, I'm not siding with anyone, and I'm not solely blaming the park managers, because it sounds like mistakes were made on both sides. I'm just saying that having the area posted is something they should have done anyway, regardless of geocaching. By not doing so, there's just as much of a chance of some drunken hooligans going in there as there is geocachers.

I think this has been a learning opportunity for a lot of people. Hopefully everyone learns from what happened here so something like this doesn't happen again.

[Clan Riffster]

Wildbun, on 10 April 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

...but in the end they paid a hefty price...

Do tell?

Wildbun, on 10 April 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

They neglected to register at the event and sign the waiver, which might be against state park policy.

I'm not seeing "hefty" here...
They didn't know about the event until they got there and read some obscure sign at the entrance when they paid their fee. If you are going to have a section of a public park available only to folks who sign a waiver, you need to ensure that anyone entering the park knows about that rule, (not just hand them a flyer), and make that waiver available as soon as the enter the park. If the park staff decides that rules were broken, they have the means to assess fines against the violators. If that happens, then maybe we'll see "hefty".

Wildbun, on 10 April 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

They missed out on the fun game with the cards and logbooks,

Or here...
Whilst the social aspects of geocaching events are fun for many, the feeling is not universal. Some folks don't like hordes. Some folks enjoy schmoozing but aren't interested in games. Some love crowds, schmoozing and games. I'm thinking, if they knew about the crowd, the schmoozing and the games, and it held interest for them, they would have been there.

Wildbun, on 10 April 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

the free lunch,

Or here...
When we weigh a hotdog and a handful of chips against a morning spent driving around a serenely beautiful natural area, we don't all tip the scales in the same direction. Some of us would prefer hunting caches and experiencing all that Gaia has to offer, over a free lunch. Perhaps the FTF group felt the same way?

Wildbun, on 10 April 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

and the raffle with some very generous prizes.

Or here...
Many people love getting freebies. Having been to a lot of events, both in this hobby and others, where stuff was raffled off, I've had occasion to witness how some folks act, and at times, it wasn't pretty. There have been times when raffle numbers in my possession were called multiple times. After I selected the first prize, when another number came up, I either passed the winning ticket to someone else, or told the MC to draw another number. I've also seen folks get several numbers drawn who accepted the prize each time, building a little mountain of stuff to take home. I can't say it's wrong, but it certainly feels greedy to me. It's why I don't generally participate in raffles much. Perhaps the folks who scored the FTFs felt the same way? I don't doubt that if they knew about the raffle, and wanted to participate, they would have.

Wildbun, on 10 April 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

I think they also burned a few bridges in the geocaching community.

Or here...

They went caching, had a good time, and upset a vocal minority of entitlement junkies.

Overall, I'd say the day was a good one, from their perspective.

[fizzymagic]

Clan Riffster, on 10 April 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

They went caching, had a good time, and upset a vocal minority of entitlement junkies.

Entitlement junkies?

Where did that come from? This issue has nothing to do with me or anyone else feeling "entitled" to FTFs. If you think that, you don't know me very well. The FTF issue is only relevant because the FTF hounds were so focused on their FTFs that they ignored park rules. I don't believe anyone else in this thread has represented that they were upset by not getting some FTFs they were "entitled" to.

I am pretty disappointed in your response, CR. You don't have a record of making inappropriate accusations like that.

[Mr.Benchmark]

Imagine instead of a geocaching event, this had been a birthday party - an open party for a neighborhood. So a couple of the neighbors really, really like cake. So they get to the party really early. They find the cake sitting out there, ready to be eaten. So they eat it all. They don't stay for the party.

Would anyone feel like that was a neighborly thing to do?

Surely even in a bare-knuckles competition like FTF there is still some concept of sportsmanship?

I was unclear from reading the thread whether or not the guys who did this logged the FTF online? I don't think they did, is that right?

[M 5]

I find the attitude of a vocal few on the forums about FTF’s to be a very tiresome. I feel there are a lot more, and worse, bad practices than the FTF hunt. I will admit that I have seen a couple of occasions where the FTFers hacked me off some, but I’d like the weigh the pros and cons

Pros:
Fun (for many) to get FTF honors

Friendly competition—This can be another subject, I know, but I have a ton of fun competing with my Geocaching friends on not just FTFs, but certain hides and stats

Find the original hide as the CO intented

No geotrail

FTF prize occasionally

Swag before deterioration (most of the time)

Most likely time to meet other cachers (I have personally made some good friends this way)

Pre spoiler logs

Probably Dry Logbook

Some caches/COs disappear really quick

Lots of caches start out with TB/geocoins and the inventory is probably the most accurate it is going to be.



Cons:
Some cachers will break rules. This should have been addressed in the new “queue” process available for the reviewers that I have been proposing for years and if used correctly should bring this con down very low and quite frankly seems to be a major contributing factor in this case. I bet just as many, or more cachers will break the same rule in the future for this threads hides.

Bickering over FTF honors from time to time. Not a big issue in my book.

Beta testing coordinates. Got better after the second phase of iphones, but is still an issue.


I'm sure I missed some on both sides, but this is all I thought up on the spur of the moment.

This post has been edited by M 5: 10 April 2012 - 10:44 PM

[DanOCan]

fizzymagic, on 10 April 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

This issue has nothing to do with me or anyone else feeling "entitled" to FTFs. If you think that, you don't know me very well. The FTF issue is only relevant because the FTF hounds were so focused on their FTFs that they ignored park rules. I don't believe anyone else in this thread has represented that they were upset by not getting some FTFs they were "entitled" to.

I guess we'll know this to be true when we see all the cachers who show up after the event logging the caches despite not being part of a group. We will see the local community burn bridges with them since they were so focused on their smiley.

Like I said earlier, I'm not assigning blame to anyone here. I could easily see myself arriving at a park and, even if I clearly saw a sign saying "Group access only", thinking "Well, the cache was places by park staff so they must be OK with me hunting for it there."

[DanOCan]

Mr.Benchmark, on 10 April 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Imagine instead of a geocaching event, this had been a birthday party - an open party for a neighborhood. So a couple of the neighbors really, really like cake. So they get to the party really early. They find the cake sitting out there, ready to be eaten. So they eat it all. They don't stay for the party.

If the cachers in question had taken all the caches and not left any behind for others to find then I might see the connection. In this case, the caches were all still there so the later group still got to have its cake.

Unless, of course, it *really* is about the FTFs and not the violation of park rules that has people upset...

[DragonsWest]

Mr.Benchmark, on 10 April 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Imagine instead of a geocaching event, this had been a birthday party - an open party for a neighborhood. So a couple of the neighbors really, really like cake. So they get to the party really early. They find the cake sitting out there, ready to be eaten. So they eat it all. They don't stay for the party.

Would anyone feel like that was a neighborly thing to do?

Surely even in a bare-knuckles competition like FTF there is still some concept of sportsmanship?

I was unclear from reading the thread whether or not the guys who did this logged the FTF online? I don't think they did, is that right?

That's a pretty good analogy, except I would replace eating the cake with opening the birthday presents to see what the honorers got for the honorees of the party. The presents are still there, but the shock at such gauche behavior is almost a tangible thing -- and the fallout is as you have been reading.

[Trinity's Crew]

I'd like some clarification. I've read the thread and if this information is there, I missed it.

1. Are/were these temporary event caches?

2. If not, does that mean that individual cachers are never allowed to seek/find them?

Edit: Spelling

This post has been edited by Trinity's Crew: 11 April 2012 - 07:59 AM

[4wheelin_fool]

Clan Riffster, on 09 April 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

There are just too many unanswered questions.

You are not supposed to ask questions.


It appears that improper communication was abound, but the FTFers are to blame anyway. The OP is concerned that a few cachers have made all cachers seem like they break park rules in the eyes of the park rangers, and is worried that all cachers could be labeled incorrectly.

But now it appears to be an attempt to label most FTFers as rule breakers, as to separate the good cachers from the bad. Although most FTFers do not break rules at all.

I believe that the cachers would not have grabbed the FTFs if they knew it was against the park rules. But we still don't know exactly what the rules of the park were yet, and the discussion has been on for a few days now.

The A-Team, on 10 April 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

We will probably never get the full, true story of what happened here, but there's one thing that seems clear to me, based on all the information here.
The park has an entrance fee and rules for most of the park. There is also a section of this park that has an additional fee and additional rules. From what everyone has said so far, it doesn't sound like any information about those additonal fees and rules is posted at the entrance to this area. To me, the park managers are just asking for misuse of that area by not doing so.

As an example, there's a provinicial campground near me that has 2 sections. The overall, general use campground, and the group site. There are very clear signs at the entrance to the group site detailing the additional fees and rules for its use.

Now, I'm not siding with anyone, and I'm not solely blaming the park managers, because it sounds like mistakes were made on both sides. I'm just saying that having the area posted is something they should have done anyway, regardless of geocaching. By not doing so, there's just as much of a chance of some drunken hooligans going in there as there is geocachers.

I think this has been a learning opportunity for a lot of people. Hopefully everyone learns from what happened here so something like this doesn't happen again.

It appears to be a communication problem more than a FTFer problem.

This post has been edited by 4wheelin_fool: 11 April 2012 - 08:05 AM

[ArcherDragoon]

4wheelin_fool, on 11 April 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

It appears to be a communication problem more than a FTFer problem.

Yep...and looking at a number of random cache pages...I still don't see the limits/boundaries talked about here being addressed...

[DragonsWest]

Trinity, on 11 April 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

I'd like some clarification. I've read the thread and if this information is there, I missed it.

1. Are/were these temporary event caches?

2. If not, does that mean that individual cachers are never allowed to seek/find them?

Edit: Spelling

1. Permanent caches

2. Available to anyone who has access to the area -- this area is for Groups. If you put together a 4x4 party and pay the fee for day use of the area, you can find all of them that you like. You can probably hide some, too, if you don't mind caches which will not be found terribly often.

[ArcherDragoon]

DragonsWest, on 11 April 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Trinity, on 11 April 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

I'd like some clarification. I've read the thread and if this information is there, I missed it.

1. Are/were these temporary event caches?

2. If not, does that mean that individual cachers are never allowed to seek/find them?

Edit: Spelling

1. Permanent caches

2. Available to anyone who has access to the area -- this area is for Groups. If you put together a 4x4 party and pay the fee for day use of the area, you can find all of them that you like. You can probably hide some, too, if you don't mind caches which will not be found terribly often.

I have no problems at all with the caches being in that sort of area...plenty of caches are in parks that require a entrance fee...my only observation...is that so far, that has not been mentioned on the cache pages (again, that ones I have found and I certainly may not have found the correct ones yet) that this area is not covered by the fee people are paying to get into the park...specifically, that the area in which the caches are in have an additional fee...

[Clan Riffster]

fizzymagic, on 10 April 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

Clan Riffster, on 10 April 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

They went caching, had a good time, and upset a vocal minority of entitlement junkies.

Entitlement junkies?

Where did that come from?

The degree of hyperbole you interjected into your opening statement.

fizzymagic, on 10 April 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

The FTF issue is only relevant because the FTF hounds were so focused on their FTFs that they ignored park rules.

I haven't yet seen any evidence that anyone intentionally broke any rules. (In fact, I haven't seen any evidence that anyone unintentionally broke the rules) I see a group that arrived at an open, public park, who paid their user fees, then drove around finding caches, having fun. I see reference to a 'waiver' that event attendees were made to sign. That's pretty standard fare for parks these days, when including civilians in their activities. I have not seen any indication that anyone accessing the off road part of the park, separate from the formal event, must sign a waiver. I've seen statements alluding to this section of the park being closed prior to the event, but I have not seen anything which might indicate this area was posted as closed on the day of the event, other than some references made about a flyer that was handed out to event attendees. I've seen references to this section of the park being off limits to anyone other than groups, yet somehow, the group that scored the FTFs is not considered a group.

You keep insisting that the FTF group did their evil deed with forethought and malice. Yet you keep refusing to back up such claims with anything resembling evidence. If you wish to crucify them publicly, you should at least show cause. I will happily join your screaming mob if you can demonstrate that the FTF group willingly and knowingly violated the rules. Till then? Not so much. I'm not a big fan of mobs.

[Clan Riffster]

Mr.Benchmark, on 10 April 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Imagine instead of a geocaching event, this had been a birthday party - an open party for a neighborhood. So a couple of the neighbors really, really like cake. So they get to the party really early. They find the cake sitting out there, ready to be eaten. So they eat it all. They don't stay for the party.

Would anyone feel like that was a neighborly thing to do?

If you tweak this just a bit, as shown, it would make for an excellent analogy:

Imagine instead of a public park event to highlight geocaching, this had been a birthday party - a closed party for only those attendees who signed a waiver. In setting up the party, the host posts the location and description of the presents on a public website, and makes no mention that viewing the presents are for only those folks who sign a waiver. So a couple of the locals really, really like the concept of presents. So they get to the party really early. They find the presents sitting out there, ready to be opened. So they open them, peek inside, admire them, scribble "Happy Birthday From Us" on the packaging and close them back up. They don't stay for the party, because parties are not their cup of tea.

Admittedly, it's not perfect, as analogies go, but it's better than the cake one.

[niraD]

ArcherDragoon, on 11 April 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Yep...and looking at a number of random cache pages...I still don't see the limits/boundaries talked about here being addressed...

A lot of the parks and open spaces around here have restrictions (e.g., closed dusk to dawn). Some cache descriptions mention such restrictions; some don't. Whether or not the cache descriptions mention the restrictions, they apply to everyone, even geocachers.

[Kealia]

Let me add this:

This happened in my neck of the woods but this is the first I'm hearing about it because I didn't attend and haven't been too active lately due to an injury.
In reading the first few posts, I knew exactly who was being talked about immediately. Later, way down on the second page it was confirmed.

We're not talking about a newbie that doesn't know the area, the people or the rules of this (and every park) in the area. This is somebody with well over 5K finds that a history of doing things like this. I've seen logs in the past that said things like:
"Didn't have time to get a permit for this area but I was only there for X time to get in and out for the FTF"
"Ended up back at the car long after dark after deciding to pick up a a few more" (knowing the park closed at sunset and that the cache pages were watched by the land manager)

And many more examples.

In an isolated case, maybe there's some grey area. When it is a pattern, it's pretty black and white.

And I will vouch for those that attended the event. There aren't many FTF hounds there and none that I would ever expect to hear griping from about being cheated out of a FTF.

I know not everybody here has the same local knowledge that I have. So you'll have to take me or leave me at my word.

Sad.

[Trinity's Crew]

DragonsWest, on 11 April 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Trinity, on 11 April 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

I'd like some clarification. I've read the thread and if this information is there, I missed it.

1. Are/were these temporary event caches?

2. If not, does that mean that individual cachers are never allowed to seek/find them?

Edit: Spelling

1. Permanent caches

2. Available to anyone who has access to the area -- this area is for Groups. If you put together a 4x4 party and pay the fee for day use of the area, you can find all of them that you like. You can probably hide some, too, if you don't mind caches which will not be found terribly often.

Ok. From what I can find on the interwebs, the Hudner Property has been open since January and is available for groups with 10-25 vehicles for a fee of $150.00 to $250.00 per night. Is this correct?

[Mr.Benchmark]

Clan Riffster, on 11 April 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

Mr.Benchmark, on 10 April 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Imagine instead of a geocaching event, this had been a birthday party - an open party for a neighborhood. So a couple of the neighbors really, really like cake. So they get to the party really early. They find the cake sitting out there, ready to be eaten. So they eat it all. They don't stay for the party.

Would anyone feel like that was a neighborly thing to do?

If you tweak this just a bit, as shown, it would make for an excellent analogy:

Imagine instead of a public park event to highlight geocaching, this had been a birthday party - a closed party for only those attendees who signed a waiver. In setting up the party, the host posts the location and description of the presents on a public website, and makes no mention that viewing the presents are for only those folks who sign a waiver. So a couple of the locals really, really like the concept of presents. So they get to the party really early. They find the presents sitting out there, ready to be opened. So they open them, peek inside, admire them, scribble "Happy Birthday From Us" on the packaging and close them back up. They don't stay for the party, because parties are not their cup of tea.

Admittedly, it's not perfect, as analogies go, but it's better than the cake one.

How is "FTF" not like a piece of cake? Once someone has eaten it, no one else can - it's gone. In the grand scheme of things, it matters about as much as birthday cake - not at all in my opinion, but it sure is a bad surprise if you go to a party and find someone has eaten it all. My only point is that the behavior wasn't intended to send a friendly message to the other party goers and hosts - it seems pretty clear from this thread that the hosts at least were offended.

I'd assume the two FTF guys in this case weren't working together, so maybe to them, seeing one another's names on the logs, they assumed this was a normal FTF race and didn't realize it until later what had happened. For the most part this seems like a really unfortunate case miscommunication to me, but I don't know what the finders knew or when they knew it. I am simply trying to suggest that competition is fine, but perhaps just a millisecond's pause to think about sportsmanship wouldn't hurt sometimes?

BTW, while I don't like your analogy CR, it did remind me of something that happened to a friend of mine, the unluckiest guy I know. I went to his wedding, and left him a present. LOTS of people left presents. Turns out though, that didn't matter - someone, probably hotel staff, stole every single wedding gift. They ended up with nothing. I don't think that applies as an analogy to this situation - you just reminded me of it, is all.

This post has been edited by Mr.Benchmark: 11 April 2012 - 11:01 AM

[Trinity's Crew]

From the Hollister Hills website:
The Upper Ranch
"This 800-acre area, which has about 24 miles of trails, is used for 4-wheel drive recreation and for 4-wheel drive and motorcycle special events; a fenced motocross track is also located here. Four-wheel drive operators should call before coming, especially on weekends, to make sure that the area isn’t reserved for a special event. To use the area for the day, register first at the park office. If your vehicle gets stuck or breaks down, you are responsible for removing it. The Upper Ranch may be accessed for day use from 8 a.m. to sunset. Vehicle operation is allowed only between sunrise and sunset."

Unless I'm reading this wrong you can pay a fee and use the Upper Ranch area anytime, but the area may be reserved for a special event which would bar you from going in on event/reserved days.
From the maps I saw the Hudner Property is included in the Upper Ranch area but I may be wrong about that.

So the general public wasn't allowed in the area on the day of the event but it seems like they were allowed on the days prior to the event if they paid the fee.

If any of this is wrong please just correct me. I am really just trying to understand the situation.

[The A-Team]

Kealia, on 11 April 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

We're not talking about a newbie that doesn't know the area, the people or the rules of this (and every park) in the area. This is somebody with well over 5K finds that a history of doing things like this.

Thanks for providing this information. It does seem to answer the question of whether they knowingly broke park rules. Hopefully this public shaming will convince them to change their ways.

[jholly]

The A-Team, on 11 April 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Kealia, on 11 April 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

We're not talking about a newbie that doesn't know the area, the people or the rules of this (and every park) in the area. This is somebody with well over 5K finds that a history of doing things like this.

Thanks for providing this information. It does seem to answer the question of whether they knowingly broke park rules. Hopefully this public shaming will convince them to change their ways.

Some how I doubt it.