Help
Wow George sure has stirred up the hornets nest anyhow here is the cache GC3MVY9 at the center of the controversy.
This was a great cache and yes it may have broken a guideline but more than that the sore point for our local community is that this cache which is situated out in the woods on crown land was targeted by another cacher not because it broke guidelines but because of an ongoing feud with another cacher who is specifically using the rules for their own personal vendetta against the CO.
Within a few hours of being published this cache was compained against but the complainant did not log their complaint on the cache page just sent out a complaint to the reviewer to get the cache removed . This enabled the person to stay anonymous and the feud is destroying the local caching community.
The collateral damage is already starting with our most prolific cacher disabling 17 of his 255 hides because of tiny rule violations.( i.e. screw used on a burned out stump)
And yes there are many great caches out there that violate the rules in one form or another.
If nails or metal were going to hurt the trees around here than we wouldn't have any left.
Alot of the caches here are on old logging roads and mining areas. we have seen numerous ones growing with rebar sticking out of them giant spikes and huge metal cables and some growing out of old vehicles and buildings.
The trees and the enviroment have way more to fear from the polluters who travel miles on the backroads to dump their garbage.
There are several caches around here that involve using water to retrieve the cache they are all screwed into trees but nobody complained and all these have been done by the person who complained about this cache so quickly.
So I guess in a longwinded roundabout way what I am trying to say is that it is way too easy for a cacher with a grudge to use the geocaching guidelines to carry out a personal vendetta. If you are going to complain about a screw in a tree than complain about them all not just a cache by a specific cacher because you are holding a grudge.
And for you people who are not local if you saw half the stuff we saw that was hurting trees around here you wouldn't worry about a teenie weenie screw.
Lily
Geocaching guidelines (a load of bull) A Nail in a Tree
#52
Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:34 PM
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:
Wow George sure has stirred up the hornets nest anyhow here is the cache GC3MVY9 at the center of the controversy.
This was a great cache and yes it may have broken a guideline but more than that the sore point for our local community is that this cache which is situated out in the woods on crown land was targeted by another cacher not because it broke guidelines but because of an ongoing feud with another cacher who is specifically using the rules for their own personal vendetta against the CO.
Within a few hours of being published this cache was compained against but the complainant did not log their complaint on the cache page just sent out a complaint to the reviewer to get the cache removed . This enabled the person to stay anonymous and the feud is destroying the local caching community.
The collateral damage is already starting with our most prolific cacher disabling 17 of his 255 hides because of tiny rule violations.( i.e. screw used on a burned out stump)
And yes there are many great caches out there that violate the rules in one form or another.
If nails or metal were going to hurt the trees around here than we wouldn't have any left.
Alot of the caches here are on old logging roads and mining areas. we have seen numerous ones growing with rebar sticking out of them giant spikes and huge metal cables and some growing out of old vehicles and buildings.
The trees and the enviroment have way more to fear from the polluters who travel miles on the backroads to dump their garbage.
There are several caches around here that involve using water to retrieve the cache they are all screwed into trees but nobody complained and all these have been done by the person who complained about this cache so quickly.
So I guess in a longwinded roundabout way what I am trying to say is that it is way too easy for a cacher with a grudge to use the geocaching guidelines to carry out a personal vendetta. If you are going to complain about a screw in a tree than complain about them all not just a cache by a specific cacher because you are holding a grudge.
And for you people who are not local if you saw half the stuff we saw that was hurting trees around here you wouldn't worry about a teenie weenie screw.
Lily
This was a great cache and yes it may have broken a guideline but more than that the sore point for our local community is that this cache which is situated out in the woods on crown land was targeted by another cacher not because it broke guidelines but because of an ongoing feud with another cacher who is specifically using the rules for their own personal vendetta against the CO.
Within a few hours of being published this cache was compained against but the complainant did not log their complaint on the cache page just sent out a complaint to the reviewer to get the cache removed . This enabled the person to stay anonymous and the feud is destroying the local caching community.
The collateral damage is already starting with our most prolific cacher disabling 17 of his 255 hides because of tiny rule violations.( i.e. screw used on a burned out stump)
And yes there are many great caches out there that violate the rules in one form or another.
If nails or metal were going to hurt the trees around here than we wouldn't have any left.
Alot of the caches here are on old logging roads and mining areas. we have seen numerous ones growing with rebar sticking out of them giant spikes and huge metal cables and some growing out of old vehicles and buildings.
The trees and the enviroment have way more to fear from the polluters who travel miles on the backroads to dump their garbage.
There are several caches around here that involve using water to retrieve the cache they are all screwed into trees but nobody complained and all these have been done by the person who complained about this cache so quickly.
So I guess in a longwinded roundabout way what I am trying to say is that it is way too easy for a cacher with a grudge to use the geocaching guidelines to carry out a personal vendetta. If you are going to complain about a screw in a tree than complain about them all not just a cache by a specific cacher because you are holding a grudge.
And for you people who are not local if you saw half the stuff we saw that was hurting trees around here you wouldn't worry about a teenie weenie screw.
Lily
Nawww.... this ain't no hornet's nest! This is just a cozy little beehive!
There is no guideline regarding local feuds, unfortunately. If a grudge between a couple of cachers is destroying the local caching community, I would suggest that there are problems that run much deeper than this little thread can address.
And now you're bringing back the whole nails in trees thing again!
#53
Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:39 PM
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:
Wow George sure has stirred up the hornets nest anyhow here is the cache GC3MVY9 at the center of the controversy.
From one of your logs on the cache page:
Quote
We all see that the issue appears to be that geocaching is being used to satisfy a personal grudge against hailholl not because he broke the rules but because it satisifies a personal vendetta by an anonymous complainant
One point I'd like to make about that, is that if HailHoll was very careful to not break any guidelines, there wouldn't be much that this vendetta holder could do about HailHoll's caches, is there?
#54
Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:42 PM
BBWolf+3Pigs, on 05 June 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:
cezanne, on 05 June 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:
They now talk of permission even for caches on public ground.
Of course this is just what is written there and not what happens in practice, but that is exactly one of the issues with the guidelines.
...
"You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property."
Of course this is just what is written there and not what happens in practice, but that is exactly one of the issues with the guidelines.
...
"You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property."
RI State Wildlife Management Areas and State Parks implicitly allow geocaching. Permission is not requried for each and every one of them. So I can 100% assure Groundspeak that I have permission to hide caches on those properties.
I agree if they implicitly allow geocaching. There are no such places in my country and I was simply surprised that such a situation applies to all
320+ caches of briansnat.
Cezanne
#55
Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:46 PM
The A-Team, on 05 June 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:
cezanne, on 05 June 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:
Have you checked the current version of the guidelines? (They differ from the old version under which I have hidden my caches.) They now talk of permission even for caches on public ground.
Of course this is just what is written there and not what happens in practice, but that is exactly one of the issues with the guidelines.
See
http://www.geocachin...guidelines.aspx
point 2 states
"You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property."
Of course this is just what is written there and not what happens in practice, but that is exactly one of the issues with the guidelines.
See
http://www.geocachin...guidelines.aspx
point 2 states
"You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property."
That guideline was recently reworded, but the meaning is still the same. It doesn't require that you acquire written permission for each and every cache. As an example, a city may produce a blanket geocaching policy that allows the hiding of geocaches in city parks if they follow some criteria. In cases such as that, there's no need to get written permission for each specific cache.
I did not use the term "written" when I wrote about permission. The reworded guidelines and what you and others write here might fit well the situation in the US, it does not fit at all the situation in many parts of Europe. In German speaking countries there are no land managers/agencies, no geocaching policies of cities, parks, communities etc, (except for a few recent local bans in Germany), no geocaching associations etc. I'm quite sure that due to the local law system, it is quite unlikely that ever such geocaching policies of giving an implicit ok to geocaches will show up in my area.
Whatever the situation in the US might be, I'm still surprised that all caches hidden by briansnat either have explicit or implicit permission.
As the change is regarded: Before the change, most European cachers understood the guidelines in the sense that for caches on public property no permission (not even an implicit one) is required from the point of view of the guidelines.
Cezanne
This post has been edited by cezanne: 05 June 2012 - 12:50 PM
#56
Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:50 PM
knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:
Wow George sure has stirred up the hornets nest anyhow here is the cache GC3MVY9 at the center of the controversy.
From one of your logs on the cache page:
Quote
We all see that the issue appears to be that geocaching is being used to satisfy a personal grudge against hailholl not because he broke the rules but because it satisifies a personal vendetta by an anonymous complainant
One point I'd like to make about that, is that if HailHoll was very careful to not break any guidelines, there wouldn't be much that this vendetta holder could do about HailHoll's caches, is there?
It seems you are a doglover by your pic. maybe you wouldn't feel like that if you memorial cache to your beloved pet was going to get removed because the bottom half was in the ground and all you had to do was lift the lid which to access the cache but apparently it qualified as buried
Another grey area lots of caches out there like that but if someone has a bone to pick with you watch out
This post has been edited by Mike&Lily: 05 June 2012 - 12:56 PM
#57
Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:58 PM
BBWolf+3Pigs, on 05 June 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:
I suspect that if a cache is placed and there is resultant damage to the plant life around it (especially if said plant life is rare or endangered) the proprty owner/manager will also call to have the cache archvied,
If he becomes aware of the damage and finds out about a geocache being the reason, yes. That's however the more rare case.
#58
Posted 05 June 2012 - 01:27 PM
cezanne, on 05 June 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:
I did not use the term "written" when I wrote about permission. The reworded guidelines and what you and others write here might fit well the situation in the US, it does not fit at all the situation in many parts of Europe. In German speaking countries there are no land managers/agencies, no geocaching policies of cities, parks, communities etc, (except for a few recent local bans in Germany), no geocaching associations etc. I'm quite sure that due to the local law system, it is quite unlikely that ever such geocaching policies of giving an implicit ok to geocaches will show up in my area.
Whatever the situation in the US might be, I'm still surprised that all caches hidden by briansnat either have explicit or implicit permission.
As the change is regarded: Before the change, most European cachers understood the guidelines in the sense that for caches on public property no permission (not even an implicit one) is required from the point of view of the guidelines.
Cezanne
Whatever the situation in the US might be, I'm still surprised that all caches hidden by briansnat either have explicit or implicit permission.
As the change is regarded: Before the change, most European cachers understood the guidelines in the sense that for caches on public property no permission (not even an implicit one) is required from the point of view of the guidelines.
Cezanne
Sorry, when I typed "written", I meant to use "explicit".
Anyway, I don't find it hard to believe that Brian has permission for all his hides. He may have a large number of them hidden in areas with geocaching policies that provide implicit permission, and the remainder could have explicit permission. Also, keep in mind that he is a reviewer, and one of the most respected cachers around. Are you suggesting a reviewer may not be getting permission for all his hides?
#59
Posted 05 June 2012 - 01:34 PM
bluenoserstoo, on 05 June 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:
My point was the geocaching guidlines are not followed to a tee, most geocaches cause some damage to an area intentional or unintentional regardless of how the are placed, and if someone were to come in and start reporting caches out of spite, that were in violation of the guidelines, how many caches would be left. It is up to the reviewer to decide if the cache should be archived and that's where common sense rules must apply, not guideline rules. I'm not just talking about the cache nailed to a tree I'm talking about all caches. MOST DO NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES as outlined. Maybe I am just venting, but this is a situation that could happen to anyone and it has caused some damage to our small geocahing community and there is no way to stop it.
The only way to ensure guidlines are followed are to have the reviewers physically visit each cache. Not gonna happen, even if they are paid to do it. My reviewer is about 6-8 hour drive away from me, he's not gonna do that 3 or 4 times a week. So unless the CO puts in the description that they have a nail in the tree the only way for the reviewer to know is if someone reports it. I'll finish by saying the same thing I tell people about cops....If you don't want to get in trouble, don't do anything wrong. Don't expect to be able to go against guidelines and then complain when you get caught.
This post has been edited by T.D.M.22: 05 June 2012 - 01:38 PM
#60
Posted 05 June 2012 - 01:41 PM
The A-Team, on 05 June 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:
Sorry, when I typed "written", I meant to use "explicit".
Anyway, I don't find it hard to believe that Brian has permission for all his hides. He may have a large number of them hidden in areas with geocaching policies that provide implicit permission, and the remainder could have explicit permission.
Anyway, I don't find it hard to believe that Brian has permission for all his hides. He may have a large number of them hidden in areas with geocaching policies that provide implicit permission, and the remainder could have explicit permission.
If he states that he has permission, I certainly will believe that. I do not know him personally, but from what I know from the forum, I trust his integrity.
Quote
Also, keep in mind that he is a reviewer, and one of the most respected cachers around. Are you suggesting a reviewer may not be getting permission for all his hides?
To answer your last question: Yes, I do. I know many reviewers from German speaking countries who are respected cachers and have hides without permission as almost all cachers around I know (me included). They admitted it in public. If I happened to live in the US, I would most probably act differently as the situation there is different.
You will know much better than I how many areas in the US have geocaching policies that allow geocaching under certain conditions. So please interpret my surprise about the fact that someone could have permission for 320+ hides rather as a sign of my surprise about a different system/situation than as a doubting the integrity of briansnat. I apologize if something I wrote could have been misunderstood. This has not been my intention.
Cezanne
This post has been edited by cezanne: 05 June 2012 - 01:42 PM
#61
Posted 05 June 2012 - 01:51 PM
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:
knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:
Wow George sure has stirred up the hornets nest anyhow here is the cache GC3MVY9 at the center of the controversy.
From one of your logs on the cache page:
Quote
We all see that the issue appears to be that geocaching is being used to satisfy a personal grudge against hailholl not because he broke the rules but because it satisifies a personal vendetta by an anonymous complainant
One point I'd like to make about that, is that if HailHoll was very careful to not break any guidelines, there wouldn't be much that this vendetta holder could do about HailHoll's caches, is there?
It seems you are a doglover by your pic. maybe you wouldn't feel like that if you memorial cache to your beloved pet was going to get removed because the bottom half was in the ground and all you had to do was lift the lid which to access the cache but apparently it qualified as buried
Another grey area lots of caches out there like that but if someone has a bone to pick with you watch out
Maybe he wouldn't feel like he had to follow the rules if he placed a cache that broke the rules that was for his favorite dog.
What!?!?!?
So far this is just complaining that people are getting caught for breaking the rules, and trying to justify it because they don't like the rule. Now you throw a guilt trip on somebody? FFS.
#62
Posted 05 June 2012 - 02:01 PM
bluenoserstoo, on 05 June 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:
Recently a cache was placed, a beautiful well thought out cache, handcrafted field puzzle. It was nailed to a tree!!!
I think we have a difference of opinion over what the phrase "well thought out" means. A well thought out cache starts with an understanding of the Guidelines.
#63
Posted 05 June 2012 - 02:57 PM
MisterEFQ, on 05 June 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:
knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:
Wow George sure has stirred up the hornets nest anyhow here is the cache GC3MVY9 at the center of the controversy.
From one of your logs on the cache page:
Quote
We all see that the issue appears to be that geocaching is being used to satisfy a personal grudge against hailholl not because he broke the rules but because it satisifies a personal vendetta by an anonymous complainant
One point I'd like to make about that, is that if HailHoll was very careful to not break any guidelines, there wouldn't be much that this vendetta holder could do about HailHoll's caches, is there?
It seems you are a doglover by your pic. maybe you wouldn't feel like that if you memorial cache to your beloved pet was going to get removed because the bottom half was in the ground and all you had to do was lift the lid which to access the cache but apparently it qualified as buried
Another grey area lots of caches out there like that but if someone has a bone to pick with you watch out
Maybe he wouldn't feel like he had to follow the rules if he placed a cache that broke the rules that was for his favorite dog.
What!?!?!?
So far this is just complaining that people are getting caught for breaking the rules, and trying to justify it because they don't like the rule. Now you throw a guilt trip on somebody? FFS.
sorry didn't mean to throw you a guilt trip that was the pre nail event this is the nail that broke the trees back lol!
Anyhow yes this was for his deceased dog at the last cache that they found together and it was a memorial cache must've been his grief that blinded him to the fact that someone would take offence that a foot of dirt was removed
Nice to see that soo many people never break the rules and are such hardasses.
BTW; for all you perfect people out there show me the nail holes .I always thought the last perfect person got crucified!
#64
Posted 05 June 2012 - 02:59 PM
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:
MisterEFQ, on 05 June 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:
knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:
Wow George sure has stirred up the hornets nest anyhow here is the cache GC3MVY9 at the center of the controversy.
From one of your logs on the cache page:
Quote
We all see that the issue appears to be that geocaching is being used to satisfy a personal grudge against hailholl not because he broke the rules but because it satisifies a personal vendetta by an anonymous complainant
One point I'd like to make about that, is that if HailHoll was very careful to not break any guidelines, there wouldn't be much that this vendetta holder could do about HailHoll's caches, is there?
It seems you are a doglover by your pic. maybe you wouldn't feel like that if you memorial cache to your beloved pet was going to get removed because the bottom half was in the ground and all you had to do was lift the lid which to access the cache but apparently it qualified as buried
Another grey area lots of caches out there like that but if someone has a bone to pick with you watch out
Maybe he wouldn't feel like he had to follow the rules if he placed a cache that broke the rules that was for his favorite dog.
What!?!?!?
So far this is just complaining that people are getting caught for breaking the rules, and trying to justify it because they don't like the rule. Now you throw a guilt trip on somebody? FFS.
sorry didn't mean to throw you a guilt trip that was the pre nail event this is the nail that broke the trees back lol!
Anyhow yes this was for his deceased dog at the last cache that they found together and it was a memorial cache must've been his grief that blinded him to the fact that someone would take offence that a foot of dirt was removed
Nice to see that soo many people never break the rules and are such hardasses.
BTW; for all you perfect people out there show me the nail holes .I always thought the last perfect person got crucified!
I thought this topic /wasn't/ about nails in trees??
#65
Posted 05 June 2012 - 03:03 PM
Just a friendly reminder, there's no rules in geocaching, just guidelines. If they are guidelines, they can be broken here and there. That's why I don't report everything I see. I had see my share of nails/screws in trees for holding caches in place but not going to report them because of the situation of how it was done and where it was.
The OP is trying to say that some cache cops with a chip on their shoulder that will report any caches that is own by a CO they don't like.
The OP is trying to say that some cache cops with a chip on their shoulder that will report any caches that is own by a CO they don't like.
#66
Posted 05 June 2012 - 03:05 PM
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:
Nice to see that soo many people never break the rules and are such hardasses.
BTW; for all you perfect people out there show me the nail holes .I always thought the last perfect person got crucified!
BTW; for all you perfect people out there show me the nail holes .I always thought the last perfect person got crucified!
I'm hardly perfect, but when I find out that I break a rule in any place in my life, I admit to it.
But I'm glad you noticed my rock hard booty. Ive been working out lately.
#67
Posted 05 June 2012 - 03:23 PM
SwineFlew, on 05 June 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:
Just a friendly reminder, there's no rules in geocaching, just guidelines. If they are guidelines, they can be broken here and there. That's why I don't report everything I see. I had see my share of nails/screws in trees for holding caches in place but not going to report them because of the situation of how it was done and where it was.
The OP is trying to say that some cache cops with a chip on their shoulder that will report any caches that is own by a CO they don't like.
The OP is trying to say that some cache cops with a chip on their shoulder that will report any caches that is own by a CO they don't like.
it seems to be way to easy to cause trouble for someone you have a conflict with. It would be great if all that crap stayed out of caching but that is too much to hope for .
The term guideline seems like a much more flexible word wish people were the same way.
#68
Posted 05 June 2012 - 03:24 PM
MisterEFQ, on 05 June 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:
Nice to see that soo many people never break the rules and are such hardasses.
BTW; for all you perfect people out there show me the nail holes .I always thought the last perfect person got crucified!
BTW; for all you perfect people out there show me the nail holes .I always thought the last perfect person got crucified!
I'm hardly perfect, but when I find out that I break a rule in any place in my life, I admit to it.
But I'm glad you noticed my rock hard booty. Ive been working out lately.
thats some pretty hard talk. hope you got pics to back it up .lol!
#69
Posted 05 June 2012 - 03:47 PM
bluenoserstoo, on 05 June 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:
Still talking about the nail in the tree. Not the point. The point is guidelines and how most caches would not meet them if someone started policing them. LOL
This response has nothing to do with nails or trees.
As it was pointed out previously, the rationale for the "no defacement guideline" is not just to protect the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, from intentional or unintentional harm. It's also in place to prevent the perception among land managers that geocachers may act irresponsibly in regard to the natural or human-made objects on the land that they manage. The defacement guideline like several others is one that a reviewer can't verify unless they went out and visited every cache prior to publication, so it's up to the community to ensure the the guideline is not violated. If the community does not engage in policing guidelines, a land manager which encounters defacement will, and the outcome is potentially going to be a lot less pleasant than the archival of a few caches.
#70
Posted 05 June 2012 - 03:57 PM
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:
knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:
Wow George sure has stirred up the hornets nest anyhow here is the cache GC3MVY9 at the center of the controversy.
From one of your logs on the cache page:
Quote
We all see that the issue appears to be that geocaching is being used to satisfy a personal grudge against hailholl not because he broke the rules but because it satisifies a personal vendetta by an anonymous complainant
One point I'd like to make about that, is that if HailHoll was very careful to not break any guidelines, there wouldn't be much that this vendetta holder could do about HailHoll's caches, is there?
It seems you are a doglover by your pic. maybe you wouldn't feel like that if you memorial cache to your beloved pet was going to get removed because the bottom half was in the ground and all you had to do was lift the lid which to access the cache but apparently it qualified as buried
Another grey area lots of caches out there like that but if someone has a bone to pick with you watch out
If my memorial cache had the bottom half in the ground, and it was reported and archived, I would only have myself to blame. I buried it. What I'm saying is that HailHoll needs to dot his "i"s and cross his "t"s and there won't be anything TO report. He apparently is leaving this fellow plenty of ammunition.
#71
Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:03 PM
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:
Anyhow yes this was for his deceased dog at the last cache that they found together and it was a memorial cache must've been his grief that blinded him to the fact that someone would take offence that a foot of dirt was removed
Once again, if I hid a memorial cache for my dog (he died last November, by the way.) I would NOT, even in my "blind grief" bury or half-bury a geocache. Why would I do that?!?
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:
BTW; for all you perfect people out there show me the nail holes .I always thought the last perfect person got crucified!
OK, this one is for the forum archives! Just classic!! Somebody quick... bookmark it for the chilndren!!
#72
Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:06 PM
SwineFlew, on 05 June 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:
The OP is trying to say that some cache cops with a chip on their shoulder that will report any caches that is own by a CO they don't like.
Or, perhaps responsible geocacher that understands the reason behind the guidelines is taking offense to caches that put geocaching at risk, and is responsibly reporting those violations (yes you can have violations to a guideline) to the reviewer, who is agreeing with them.
#73
Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:17 PM
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:
MisterEFQ, on 05 June 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:
Nice to see that soo many people never break the rules and are such hardasses.
BTW; for all you perfect people out there show me the nail holes .I always thought the last perfect person got crucified!
BTW; for all you perfect people out there show me the nail holes .I always thought the last perfect person got crucified!
I'm hardly perfect, but when I find out that I break a rule in any place in my life, I admit to it.
But I'm glad you noticed my rock hard booty. Ive been working out lately.
thats some pretty hard talk. hope you got pics to back it up .lol!
I believe this would be him. I found another where he's posing with a mule, but I wasn't sure which was which.
(ps: I think I know MisterEFQ well enough to post this
)
This post has been edited by knowschad: 05 June 2012 - 04:44 PM
#74
Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:59 PM
This thread is a sure sign that the zombie apocalypse is upon us. I'd stay away from all forms of bath salt, nails, and Coors light.
#75
Posted 05 June 2012 - 05:15 PM
4wheelin_fool, on 05 June 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:
This thread is a sure sign that the zombie apocalypse is upon us. I'd stay away from all forms of bath salt, nails, and Coors light.
I stay away from Coors Light as a rule anyway...
#76
Posted 05 June 2012 - 05:27 PM
I was just checking out creative videos on this site and actually watched a video with a very creative birdhouse screwed to a tree so if this is so against the guidelines why is it there. Sending a mixed message.This makes me think that these types of caches are approved .watched another that extends at least 2 ft into the ground with only the top exposed looks buried to me. both of these caches are variation of the same type that got this guy into trouble .
why are they being showcased on this site if they violate guidelines
why are they being showcased on this site if they violate guidelines
This post has been edited by Mike&Lily: 05 June 2012 - 05:39 PM
#78
Posted 05 June 2012 - 06:10 PM
AZcachemeister, on 05 June 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:
Funny, I routinely see tags NAILED to trees by the landscapers.
They certainly do do that. And signs. And sometimes they cut the trees down. But they are their trees (or have authority that amounts to the same). They can do that with their trees. We don't.
#79
Posted 05 June 2012 - 06:54 PM
OK, I promise not to talk about the n__l in the tree. So how about this view of the situation.?
Cacher broke the rules. Don't care how, when, where. Another cacher dropped dime on them. Again... don't care why, when.
Reviewer obviously agreed with reporter. Cache was archived.
Cacher got butthurt and archived some other caches. VERY mature response.
You come here questioning the guidelines. Or rather, the enforcement thereof. I understand your position.
The Reviewers don't go physicaly inspect every hide. Nor do they do periodic checks to see if any geo-trail damage is being incurred. They rely on... wait for it... OTHER cachers to report any issues with the caches they find.
If you feel there are caches in your area that violate the Guidelines, it is up to YOU to report them. Any of them. All of them. Coming to the Forum and questioning is fine, but if you feel so strongly about the "violations" you seem to see so many of, put on your badge, and start writing tickets. Send them to the Reviewer. Let them handle it. Let us know how that works out.
I am really not sure why you came here and posted. WE can't change how it was handled. If it was just curiosity, Ok, I can accept that, and move along to some other reading.
Cacher broke the rules. Don't care how, when, where. Another cacher dropped dime on them. Again... don't care why, when.
Reviewer obviously agreed with reporter. Cache was archived.
Cacher got butthurt and archived some other caches. VERY mature response.
You come here questioning the guidelines. Or rather, the enforcement thereof. I understand your position.
The Reviewers don't go physicaly inspect every hide. Nor do they do periodic checks to see if any geo-trail damage is being incurred. They rely on... wait for it... OTHER cachers to report any issues with the caches they find.
If you feel there are caches in your area that violate the Guidelines, it is up to YOU to report them. Any of them. All of them. Coming to the Forum and questioning is fine, but if you feel so strongly about the "violations" you seem to see so many of, put on your badge, and start writing tickets. Send them to the Reviewer. Let them handle it. Let us know how that works out.
I am really not sure why you came here and posted. WE can't change how it was handled. If it was just curiosity, Ok, I can accept that, and move along to some other reading.
#80
- US Geocacher of the Year 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 37300
- Joined: 14-September 01
Posted 05 June 2012 - 08:24 PM
The A-Team, on 05 June 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:
cezanne, on 05 June 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:
I did not use the term "written" when I wrote about permission. The reworded guidelines and what you and others write here might fit well the situation in the US, it does not fit at all the situation in many parts of Europe. In German speaking countries there are no land managers/agencies, no geocaching policies of cities, parks, communities etc, (except for a few recent local bans in Germany), no geocaching associations etc. I'm quite sure that due to the local law system, it is quite unlikely that ever such geocaching policies of giving an implicit ok to geocaches will show up in my area.
Whatever the situation in the US might be, I'm still surprised that all caches hidden by briansnat either have explicit or implicit permission.
As the change is regarded: Before the change, most European cachers understood the guidelines in the sense that for caches on public property no permission (not even an implicit one) is required from the point of view of the guidelines.
Cezanne
Whatever the situation in the US might be, I'm still surprised that all caches hidden by briansnat either have explicit or implicit permission.
As the change is regarded: Before the change, most European cachers understood the guidelines in the sense that for caches on public property no permission (not even an implicit one) is required from the point of view of the guidelines.
Cezanne
Sorry, when I typed "written", I meant to use "explicit".
Anyway, I don't find it hard to believe that Brian has permission for all his hides. He may have a large number of them hidden in areas with geocaching policies that provide implicit permission, and the remainder could have explicit permission. Also, keep in mind that he is a reviewer, and one of the most respected cachers around. Are you suggesting a reviewer may not be getting permission for all his hides?
Most are in state and county parks that do not require permission. Where permission is required I have obtained it.
#81
Posted 05 June 2012 - 09:22 PM
AZcachemeister, on 05 June 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:
Funny, I routinely see tags NAILED to trees by the landscapers.
Yep. That is the way foresters and conservationists keep track of trees too. We have a forester in the family and I went out with him a couple of times to "do plots"... nailing tags to trees so when they go back in ten years they can track the growth of the selected trees.
It's not the nails or screws that are the problem, nails and screws don't hurt trees. Think about all those tree branches that break off every winter. Those breaks expose a lot of fresh wood but the tree has defenses to heal those wounds.
As has been said here already and always is said when this topic comes up, it is the appearance of harm or disrespect that is the problem.
Thankfully, it seems as though few people report these marginal and harmless kinds of cache hides.
#82
Posted 05 June 2012 - 10:24 PM
bluenoserstoo, on 05 June 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:
My point was the geocaching guidlines are not followed to a tee, most geocaches cause some damage to an area intentional or unintentional regardless of how the are placed, and if someone were to come in and start reporting caches out of spite, that were in violation of the guidelines, how many caches would be left. It is up to the reviewer to decide if the cache should be archived and that's where common sense rules must apply, not guideline rules. I'm not just talking about the cache nailed to a tree I'm talking about all caches. MOST DO NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES as outlined. Maybe I am just venting, but this is a situation that could happen to anyone and it has caused some damage to our small geocahing community and there is no way to stop it.
2 points.
One, someone pointed out iin a similar thread, natural damage. Example: A bear claws out bark on a tree and damages it, and later it dies. Okay yes, but the bear wasn't placing a cache. It's a natural course that takes place not destroying, defacing or changing anything deliberatly to hide a cache. Digging holes, drilling out holes or cutting branches is not a natural course. In fact we are in the parks by parks permission. What we do when we are there reflects back on us.
Second, some keep bringing up examples of the Original stash cache or Mingo being buried and some of the other caches that go against the guidelines. The guidelines are more or less a learning process on what works and what doesn't. What helps the enviroment and what makes it worse. But they are grandfathered and remain part of history and not what we do now. We all seen some caches slip by the guidelines. Mostly because the CO doesn't tell the reviewer how the cache is put out and where. So don't blame reviewers.
IMHO
This post has been edited by jellis: 05 June 2012 - 10:26 PM
#83
Posted 05 June 2012 - 11:45 PM
briansnat, on 05 June 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:
Most are in state and county parks that do not require permission.
I start to understand why people from the US hardly understand the permission issue that occurs in many European countries and the reason why this
part of the guideline there is typically not worth the paper it is printed on. Virtual caches would be the only clean way out which interestingly is exactly the other way round as it seems to be in many parks in the US where the existence of virtuals appears to harm the container variant of geocaching.
I knew before that there are areas in the US where permission for hiding containers is not needed, but I have not quite got until now how large these areas appear to be at least in some regions. So I've learned something new in a thread where I did not expect it. Thank you.
But wait, your statement makes me curious as your first caches are from that early as 2002. When did these geocaching policies providing explicit permission show up? Did it really work that first the authorities issued such policies and then the cachers have hidden caches? Is there any forum thread about how these policies evolved?
Cezanne
This post has been edited by cezanne: 05 June 2012 - 11:55 PM
#84
Posted 06 June 2012 - 02:58 AM
I didn't start this post to point fingers or say what was right or wrong, I wanted to bring up a discussion on the guidelines, and I'm gonna say it (and I am only using this as an example) A NAIL IN A TREE. Yes the majority of you agree A NAIL IN A TREE is BAD, but a nail in a dead tree is that bad?, is a nail in a dead stump?, how about that? or what about a nail in a dead tree on my property or somewhere I got permission? Where is the line Groundspeak has drawn. Some people see this as black and white others don't. The guidelines state... 5.Wildlife and the natural environment are not harmed in the pursuit of geocaching. So if there is a Geotrail to your cache or people break branches or trample the area doing your cache you have broken the guidelines. All i'm trying to say is that GUIDELINES are not always clear to every cacher and sometimes they may go outside the guidelines intentional or not, do you report them? Most people probably not, if it is doing extreme damage to an area probably, YES.
I really wasn't trying to get an opinion on what happened here in our community. I wanted a discussion on people's views of the GUIDELINES, what is acceptable, what is not. I personally don't think Groundspeak has done a good job in that area. Everything is subject to interpretation, some things may be acceptable in some areas where other areas it's not. What may work 30 miles on a back country road is not acceptable in a provincial/state park.
I really wasn't trying to get an opinion on what happened here in our community. I wanted a discussion on people's views of the GUIDELINES, what is acceptable, what is not. I personally don't think Groundspeak has done a good job in that area. Everything is subject to interpretation, some things may be acceptable in some areas where other areas it's not. What may work 30 miles on a back country road is not acceptable in a provincial/state park.
#85
Posted 06 June 2012 - 03:03 AM
bluenoserstoo, on 06 June 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:
So if there is a Geotrail to your cache or people break branches or trample the area doing your cache you have broken the guidelines.
Geocache hiders don't create geotrails, geocache finders do.
A responsible cache owner will move or remove a cache which has led to environmental damage but it's not a guideline violation if they don't.
#86
Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:03 AM
bluenoserstoo, on 06 June 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:
I didn't start this post to point fingers or say what was right or wrong, I wanted to bring up a discussion on the guidelines, and I'm gonna say it (and I am only using this as an example) A NAIL IN A TREE. Yes the majority of you agree A NAIL IN A TREE is BAD, but a nail in a dead tree is that bad?, is a nail in a dead stump?, how about that? or what about a nail in a dead tree on my property or somewhere I got permission? Where is the line Groundspeak has drawn. Some people see this as black and white others don't. The guidelines state... 5.Wildlife and the natural environment are not harmed in the pursuit of geocaching. So if there is a Geotrail to your cache or people break branches or trample the area doing your cache you have broken the guidelines. All i'm trying to say is that GUIDELINES are not always clear to every cacher and sometimes they may go outside the guidelines intentional or not, do you report them? Most people probably not, if it is doing extreme damage to an area probably, YES.
I really wasn't trying to get an opinion on what happened here in our community. I wanted a discussion on people's views of the GUIDELINES, what is acceptable, what is not. I personally don't think Groundspeak has done a good job in that area. Everything is subject to interpretation, some things may be acceptable in some areas where other areas it's not. What may work 30 miles on a back country road is not acceptable in a provincial/state park.
I really wasn't trying to get an opinion on what happened here in our community. I wanted a discussion on people's views of the GUIDELINES, what is acceptable, what is not. I personally don't think Groundspeak has done a good job in that area. Everything is subject to interpretation, some things may be acceptable in some areas where other areas it's not. What may work 30 miles on a back country road is not acceptable in a provincial/state park.
A nail in a dead tree is bad if park personnel see it, and take offense at it.
As has been pointed out a number of times, the reviewers do not inspect every cache. Even in their geocaching personas, they are only likely to run into a small percentage of them. But when they see a guideline violation, or when one is reported to them, they will act on it.
If the guidelines are not perfectly clear... ask about them! Send your reviewer a note, or ask the question here. ASK if its OK to put a nail in a dead tree. ASK if its OK to half-bury a cache.
If you or your friends want to avoid having caches reported as guideline violations, then avoid violating the guidelines. It is that simple. Don't blame guidelines or local politics for breaking up your local caching community.
#87
Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:36 AM
knowschad, on 06 June 2012 - 05:03 AM, said:
A nail in a dead tree is bad if park personnel see it, and take offense at it.
I have a maybe stupid question that is not directly related this thread. I wonder because almost always in such discussions people mainly talk about parks and land managers. Are there any numbers of how large is the proportion of forest and mountain areas in the US that are located in parks or have a land manager in comparison to forest and mountain areas owned by private persons just like you and me? Somehow all of the above seems to suggest that the latter case does not occur very often and probably only for small areas, or do also private people like farmers employ land managers?
Cezanne
#88
Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:51 AM
I own a farm we have a barbwire fence surrounding most of it often times a tree is used as a post with 5 strands nailed to it, trust me the tree will just grow around it, a few nails in the tree will not hurt the tree, I think if the owner of the property said they were okay with the cache and it's placement I agree bad rule.
#89
Posted 06 June 2012 - 05:52 AM
cezanne, on 06 June 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:
knowschad, on 06 June 2012 - 05:03 AM, said:
A nail in a dead tree is bad if park personnel see it, and take offense at it.
I have a maybe stupid question that is not directly related this thread. I wonder because almost always in such discussions people mainly talk about parks and land managers. Are there any numbers of how large is the proportion of forest and mountain areas in the US that are located in parks or have a land manager in comparison to forest and mountain areas owned by private persons just like you and me? Somehow all of the above seems to suggest that the latter case does not occur very often and probably only for small areas, or do also private people like farmers employ land managers?
Cezanne
I think that would be an impossible question to answer without stating more parameters. We have privately-owned parks, city-owned parks, country-owned parks, privately managed county-owned parks, state-owned land, and federally-owned land. Many of those classifications are then sub-divided into their own management groups and rules. We have state parks and state forests, as well as wildlife reserves, scientific natural areas (SNAs), and so-on.
In the case that I mentioned on page #1, it was a city park and someone from the city that discovered a fake birdhouse geocache nailed to a tree. I suspect most of us would whole-heartedly agree that it was a drastic over-reaction, but our opinion is moot... it still shut down geocaching in all parks owned by that city for a couple of years, and even today, cachers in that city have to register their caches and follow somewhat restrictive local rules for placement. Prior to the birdhouse incident, geocaching was under no restrictions other than those that we all live with.
#90
Posted 06 June 2012 - 06:52 AM
cezanne, on 06 June 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:
Are there any numbers of how large is the proportion of forest and mountain areas in the US that are located in parks or have a land manager in comparison to forest and mountain areas owned by private persons just like you and me? Somehow all of the above seems to suggest that the latter case does not occur very often and probably only for small areas, or do also private people like farmers employ land managers?
About 58% of U.S. forests are privately owned. The federal government owns 33%, states own 8%, and local governments own 1%. About 81% of Austrian forests are privately owned and 19% are public.
#91
Posted 06 June 2012 - 06:54 AM
bluenoserstoo, on 06 June 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:
Yes the majority of you agree A NAIL IN A TREE is BAD, but a nail in a dead tree is that bad?, is a nail in a dead stump?, how about that? or what about a nail in a dead tree on my property or somewhere I got permission? Where is the line Groundspeak has drawn.
All of the above are against the guidelines. I'll use another guideline as an example: "Geocaches are never buried".
The primary reason for this guideline is to dispell any ideas that people may have that geocaching involves hunting for buried treasure. It doesn't matter if you own the property where you want to dig a hole, it isn't allowed. A new cacher could see your cache hidden in a hole and decide it's fine for them to dig a hole in a park for their own hide, which I think we can all agree would be bad for the game. To prevent this from happening, they've outlawed the practice entirely.
Now back to the defacement guideline.
For a similar reason as the "buried" guideline, this guideline is in place to prevent land managers/the general public from getting the idea that geocachers are constantly nailing things to trees, drilling holes in things, etc. Even if you were allowed to nail something to a dead tree on your property, the same thing could happen as with the above "buried" guideline, in that a new cacher could see your hide and think it's okay for them to nail something to a dead tree in a park. Rather than run the risk of having this happen, they made a guideline that outlaws the practice entirely.
Of course, there are "degrees of violation" of the guidelines.
If you removed half an inch of dirt to hide your container, most people and TPTB probably wouldn't see that as a violation of the "buried" guideline.
If you have to cross a patch of knee-high grass to get to a cache, most people and TPTB probably wouldn't see that as a violation of the "harm to natural environment" guideline.
If you have to make a tiny pin-hole in a tree by pushing a firetack into it, most people and TPTB probably wouldn't see that as a violation of the "defacement" guideline.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), the guidelines aren't black-and-white. There are grey areas. Sometimes those grey areas can cause problems such as in this case. More often those grey areas allow for creative caches to be hidden.
If you're hiding a cache, and are wondering if what you're doing is violating any guidelines, think of it this way: If you did it in a downtown city park in front of city hall, would they be okay with it? If the answer is no, then it's most likely against the guidelines and you shouldn't do it.
#92
Posted 06 June 2012 - 06:59 AM
Quote
As has been pointed out a number of times, the reviewers do not inspect every cache. Even in their geocaching personas, they are only likely to run into a small percentage of them. But when they see a guideline violation, or when one is reported to them, they will act on it.
Exactly that is my point reviewers don't see the cache we do, we decide what is acceptable in certain areas. Except in the obvious areas managed properties, parks etc....
Quote
If the guidelines are not perfectly clear... ask about them! Send your reviewer a note, or ask the question here. ASK if its OK to put a nail in a dead tree. ASK if its OK to half-bury a cache.
I am totally with you on this point, but out of the 2400 caches I have done, I have seen many violations, so it is obvious a lot of cachers do not follow this rule, and than that brings my point again. We decide what is acceptable and where...
Quote
If you or your friends want to avoid having caches reported as guideline violations, then avoid violating the guidelines. It is that simple. Don't blame guidelines or local politics for breaking up your local caching community.
I am trying my best to not make this about me or my community, although I am guilty of bringing it up I agree with this.
What i am trying to get at, is the reviewers don't police the caches, they only go with what info they are given. Groundspeaks Guidelines are at most vague(in my opinion of course). Most cachers don't ask what is acceptable when they place a cache. So we as cachers basically decide what is acceptable in these guidelines, except what is not allowed by written law, parks rules etc. etc...outside of these areas we as a caching community decide what is good and what is bad. Until it gets reported and Groundspeak(reviewers) step in.
This post has been edited by bluenoserstoo: 06 June 2012 - 07:06 AM
#93
Posted 06 June 2012 - 07:10 AM
I haven't read EVERY post ( maybe half ) but this reminds me of a recent post regarding the dangers to fish by having a small metal tag in a pond or lake. I can't believe folks really believe this stuff. Unless you're driving a 1" dia nail into a 1/2" dia tree you not hurting anything....this kind of stuff is just foolish. I own a large live oak tree that is in front of my property. Years ago I attached a large fancy mailbox to two pieces of angle iron which in turn were fastened to the tree with 4 large lag bolts....its a TB hotel and doing fine. I've seen tree houses, ladders,hammocks,birdhouses, etc attached to trees with no ill effects.
In conclusion let me say I've found many creative caches attached to trees and the only comment they get from me are praise and favorite votes.
In conclusion let me say I've found many creative caches attached to trees and the only comment they get from me are praise and favorite votes.
#94
Posted 06 June 2012 - 07:10 AM
bluenoserstoo, on 06 June 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:
What i am trying to get at, is the reviewers don't police the caches, they only go with what info they are given.
This is true.
bluenoserstoo, on 06 June 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:
Groundspeaks Guidelines are at most vague(in my opinion of course).
This is true. The same could be said for the U.S. Constitution. There is a good reason for that vagueness.
bluenoserstoo, on 06 June 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:
Most cachers don't ask what is acceptable when they place a cache.
I disagree. Most cachers know what is acceptable when they place a cache, and don't violate that. A few don't know, or don't care. Some do turn their heads and look the other way when they encounter caches like those. Some are older caches that have been "grandfathered in". Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you found a cache that breaks a rule doesn't mean that you should break that rule and expect to get away with it.
bluenoserstoo, on 06 June 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:
So we as cachers basically decide what is acceptable in these guidelines, except what is allowed by written law, parks rules etc. etc...outside of these areas we as a caching community decide what is good and what is bad. Until it gets reported and Groundspeak(reviewers) step in.
That sounds about right, yes.
#95
Posted 06 June 2012 - 07:12 AM
BAMBOOZLE, on 06 June 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:
I haven't read EVERY post ( maybe half ) but this reminds me of a recent post regarding the dangers to fish by having a small metal tag in a pond or lake. I can't believe folks really believe this stuff. Unless you're driving a 1" dia nail into a 1/2" dia tree you not hurting anything....this kind of stuff is just foolish. I own a large live oak tree that is in front of my property. Years ago I attached a large fancy mailbox to two pieces of angle iron which in turn were fastened to the tree with 4 large lag bolts....its a TB hotel and doing fine. I've seen tree houses, ladders,hammocks,birdhouses, etc attached to trees with no ill effects.
In conclusion let me say I've found many creative caches attached to trees and the only comment they get from me are praise and favorite votes.
In conclusion let me say I've found many creative caches attached to trees and the only comment they get from me are praise and favorite votes.
If you missed the threads that mention that the nail guideline has nothing at all to do with harming trees, then you did not read even close to half the thread.
#96
Posted 06 June 2012 - 07:18 AM
knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:
MisterEFQ, on 05 June 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:
Mike&Lily, on 05 June 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:
Nice to see that soo many people never break the rules and are such hardasses.
BTW; for all you perfect people out there show me the nail holes .I always thought the last perfect person got crucified!
BTW; for all you perfect people out there show me the nail holes .I always thought the last perfect person got crucified!
I'm hardly perfect, but when I find out that I break a rule in any place in my life, I admit to it.
But I'm glad you noticed my rock hard booty. Ive been working out lately.
thats some pretty hard talk. hope you got pics to back it up .lol!
I believe this would be him. I found another where he's posing with a mule, but I wasn't sure which was which.
(ps: I think I know MisterEFQ well enough to post this
)You nailed it!
#97
Posted 06 June 2012 - 07:22 AM
If I go caching on private property I assume I have permission, if I found out that isn't the case I would contact the local reviewer and attempt to have all of that c/o caches archived, it's bad practice to not ask permission, I have heard of several people being ran off by shot-gun. I think most geocaching problems arise from lazy c/o's rather then muggles, reviewers, and cachers.
#98
Posted 06 June 2012 - 08:24 AM
knowschad, on 06 June 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:
BAMBOOZLE, on 06 June 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:
I haven't read EVERY post ( maybe half ) but this reminds me of a recent post regarding the dangers to fish by having a small metal tag in a pond or lake. I can't believe folks really believe this stuff. Unless you're driving a 1" dia nail into a 1/2" dia tree you not hurting anything....this kind of stuff is just foolish. I own a large live oak tree that is in front of my property. Years ago I attached a large fancy mailbox to two pieces of angle iron which in turn were fastened to the tree with 4 large lag bolts....its a TB hotel and doing fine. I've seen tree houses, ladders,hammocks,birdhouses, etc attached to trees with no ill effects.
In conclusion let me say I've found many creative caches attached to trees and the only comment they get from me are praise and favorite votes.
In conclusion let me say I've found many creative caches attached to trees and the only comment they get from me are praise and favorite votes.
If you missed the threads that mention that the nail guideline has nothing at all to do with harming trees, then you did not read even close to half the thread.
In my area 92.28% of tree caches are in areas that don't have land managers.....just snakes and alligators.
I would think an area that has a " land manager " would require explicit permission to hide a cache at which point the type of hide would be cleared with the manager.....as for the other 92.28% the nail is no big deal.
Therefore I would agree with the original post that this guideline is strange and leads to these "tempest in a teapot " threads.
#99
Posted 06 June 2012 - 08:31 AM
BAMBOOZLE, on 06 June 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:
knowschad, on 06 June 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:
BAMBOOZLE, on 06 June 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:
I haven't read EVERY post ( maybe half ) but this reminds me of a recent post regarding the dangers to fish by having a small metal tag in a pond or lake. I can't believe folks really believe this stuff. Unless you're driving a 1" dia nail into a 1/2" dia tree you not hurting anything....this kind of stuff is just foolish. I own a large live oak tree that is in front of my property. Years ago I attached a large fancy mailbox to two pieces of angle iron which in turn were fastened to the tree with 4 large lag bolts....its a TB hotel and doing fine. I've seen tree houses, ladders,hammocks,birdhouses, etc attached to trees with no ill effects.
In conclusion let me say I've found many creative caches attached to trees and the only comment they get from me are praise and favorite votes.
In conclusion let me say I've found many creative caches attached to trees and the only comment they get from me are praise and favorite votes.
If you missed the threads that mention that the nail guideline has nothing at all to do with harming trees, then you did not read even close to half the thread.
In my area 92.28% of tree caches are in areas that don't have land managers.....just snakes and alligators.
I would think an area that has a " land manager " would require explicit permission to hide a cache at which point the type of hide would be cleared with the manager.....as for the other 92.28% the nail is no big deal.
Therefore I would agree with the original post that this guideline is strange and leads to these "tempest in a teapot " threads.
Well I know of a lot land that is not "managed" by anyone but I have never seen any land not owned by anyone.....again I would be highly upset accidentally trespassing on someone's land.
#100
Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:36 AM
BAMBOOZLE, on 06 June 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:
knowschad, on 06 June 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:
BAMBOOZLE, on 06 June 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:
I haven't read EVERY post ( maybe half ) but this reminds me of a recent post regarding the dangers to fish by having a small metal tag in a pond or lake. I can't believe folks really believe this stuff. Unless you're driving a 1" dia nail into a 1/2" dia tree you not hurting anything....this kind of stuff is just foolish. I own a large live oak tree that is in front of my property. Years ago I attached a large fancy mailbox to two pieces of angle iron which in turn were fastened to the tree with 4 large lag bolts....its a TB hotel and doing fine. I've seen tree houses, ladders,hammocks,birdhouses, etc attached to trees with no ill effects.
In conclusion let me say I've found many creative caches attached to trees and the only comment they get from me are praise and favorite votes.
In conclusion let me say I've found many creative caches attached to trees and the only comment they get from me are praise and favorite votes.
If you missed the threads that mention that the nail guideline has nothing at all to do with harming trees, then you did not read even close to half the thread.
In my area 92.28% of tree caches are in areas that don't have land managers.....just snakes and alligators.
I would think an area that has a " land manager " would require explicit permission to hide a cache at which point the type of hide would be cleared with the manager.....as for the other 92.28% the nail is no big deal.
Therefore I would agree with the original post that this guideline is strange and leads to these "tempest in a teapot " threads.
You would think wrong. Just city parks. No explicit permission was necessary until that cache was spotted.
