| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sui generis
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 608
Location: Eagan, MN
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I have seen requirements of particular types of cache containers in Illinois.
| Quote: |
Container must be made of clear (see through) material, with a size no greater than 4"x8"x12".
|
This seems to be more of a requirement for security's sake than for issues of abandoned property and litter. They want to be able to see contents of caches without opening the container. I suppose this could prevent the need to call a bombsquad every timer an ammocan is found.
As far as using a standardized container, the only benefit I can see for the DNR is the ability to raise some funds by selling the containers. If the DNR is simply concerned about the impact of certain container types on the environment (for example, putting a micro in the woods has proven a pretty good way to devastate an area) Then the best solution would be to simply agree to general size restrictions on containers (no bigger than X and no smaller than Y.)
_________________
I am amazed by how many people harp on the need to speak and write English in this country while exhibiting a fundamental lack of skills in the areas of spelling and sentence composition. Would this be irony, hypocrisy, or both? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sui generis
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 608
Location: Eagan, MN
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Isn't a State Park supposed to be as natural as possible? A cache, being manmade and unnatural, therefore has no place in a state park especially off the marked trails. |
There are many examples of activities allowed in the parks that are "unnatural" that are permitted, including the parks own building of facilities to encourage tourism. Then there is the traffic permitted in parks from motor vehicles, motor homes, snowmobiles, etc. Or how about a deck or a bench placed at a scenic overlook. The caches are not abandoned property, but maintained property with a special recreational purpose.
_________________
I am amazed by how many people harp on the need to speak and write English in this country while exhibiting a fundamental lack of skills in the areas of spelling and sentence composition. Would this be irony, hypocrisy, or both? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King Boreas
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 2348
Location: Exploring Minnesota
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The caches are not abandoned property, but maintained property with a special recreational purpose.
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ice tres
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The caches are not abandoned property, but maintained property with a special recreational purpose. |
Yeah, but what if the DNR points out that a deer blind is also maintained property with a special recreational purpose. How about a dock?
I don't think the DNR wants private property in State Parks period. So one (among many) responses to their potential objection should be "OK, the cache is officially owned by the DNR once hidden and maintained by the cache owner." To me this would be an acceptable fall-back position if it is needed to break an impasse in negotiations.
_________________
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -President Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure I'm comfortable using that particular wording as we are trying to represent all geocachers in the State. I'm not particularly fond of the DNR "owning" the cache and the cachers simply maintaining it.
Perhaps I'm alone in this regard but I doubt it.
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sui generis
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 608
Location: Eagan, MN
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yeah, but what if the DNR points out that a deer blind is also maintained property with a special recreational purpose. How about a dock?
I don't think the DNR wants private property in State Parks period.
|
This is a good point, however, the difference is that we are helping them to develop a policy to control this type of recreational property and where it goes. Kind of like putting in a horseshoes pit. They do it, but they have a say in where with regard to surrounding environment. Besides, if these slippery slope type scenarios develop, it can be used the other way with regard to the environmental impact argument. Hunting, snowmobiling, hiking, camping, and many other activities have just as much or greater impact on the environment, yet are allowed within a controlled, policy governed framework.
_________________
I am amazed by how many people harp on the need to speak and write English in this country while exhibiting a fundamental lack of skills in the areas of spelling and sentence composition. Would this be irony, hypocrisy, or both? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King Boreas
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 2348
Location: Exploring Minnesota
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| the cache is officially owned by the DNR once hidden and maintained by the cache owner |
end of caching
since I won't place any caches in state parks, it doesn't matter. what does matter, is that if that becomes a policy, how many counties/cities/park districts will jump on the bandwagon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| King Boreas wrote: |
| how many counties/cities/park districts will jump on the bandwagon? |
That is a major component of all of my thought processes regarding this.
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmnrec
Geocacher
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 478
Location: Duluth
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| King Boreas wrote: |
| Quote: |
| the cache is officially owned by the DNR once hidden and maintained by the cache owner |
end of caching
since I won't place any caches in state parks, it doesn't matter. what does matter, is that if that becomes a policy, how many counties/cities/park districts will jump on the bandwagon? |
NONE...if the City of Duluth owned all the caches placed in our parks and someone got hurt in the pursuit of one of the caches, who would they sue? The City. That is why when we developed the policy, we did not have caches "registered" like 3 Rivers, or "approved" caches. We just have the cache owners "notify" us of placement. Legally, it makes a big difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sui generis
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 608
Location: Eagan, MN
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that ownership should remain with the placer. If the DNR really wants to own the caches, we may as well push a policy asking them to place and maintain their own caches in the park for us to find. Something tells me that would not be a well received plan. Cachers like to hide the caches as much as find them.
on another note:
I honestly think that if the parks can not get over the fact that caches are what they are, and will not trust us to obey rules and maintain caches, we are dead in the water. There are many semantical games that can be played with the word "abandoned", for example, it is not "abandoned" if the placer has an intent to return or retrieve. This definition is consistent with both the legal concept of abandonment and the layman's definition (Webster's anyway). End result, however, is if we are forced into such semantical arguments, we had no hope of winning to begin with. Perhaps our best response to the "abandoned property" question lays with our initial presentation and definition of the sport so that the question doesn't even come up.
_________________
I am amazed by how many people harp on the need to speak and write English in this country while exhibiting a fundamental lack of skills in the areas of spelling and sentence composition. Would this be irony, hypocrisy, or both? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmnrec wrote: |
| NONE...if the City of Duluth owned all the caches placed in our parks and someone got hurt in the pursuit of one of the caches, who would they sue? The City. That is why when we developed the policy, we did not have caches "registered" like 3 Rivers, or "approved" caches. We just have the cache owners "notify" us of placement. Legally, it makes a big difference. |
That's "ONE", not "NONE". Currently everyone (including the DNR), minus Duluth, that has a policy built it from Three Rivers'. Thus just about everyone wants to have the cache "registered" with the District.
Even with the updates we made to Three Rivers' new policy it still has a provision for registering the cache with them. While I believe that the Duluth policy is the best one available for ALL interested parties, I'm not as certain as you are that other parks will take the same approach that Duluth did.
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sui generis wrote: |
| I agree that ownership should remain with the placer. If the DNR really wants to own the caches, we may as well push a policy asking them to place and maintain their own caches in the park for us to find. Something tells me that would not be a well received plan. Cachers like to hide the caches as much as find them. |
While I see what ice tres is trying to say I really feel that we would be shortchanging the hiders with that sort of agreement. By the simple fact that the DNR has full revocation rights they, in effect, have full "ownership" of the cache as it is.
It's the wording that's important though. Having the DNR "own" the caches is something that will likely leave a bad taste in the hiders' mouth and might dissuade them from hiding a cache again.
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ice tres
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
If a cache seeker can sue a cache hider for injuries during the search for "normally" hidden caches on public land, then I'm never going to hide another cache and will remove the one I did hide. Do you really think King Boreas has 800+ chances to be sued if someone gets injured on a cache hunt?
Has this ever happened?
_________________
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -President Bush |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ice tres wrote: |
| If a cache seeker can sue a cache hider for injuries during the search for "normally" hidden caches on public land, then I'm never going to hide another cache and will remove the one I did hide. Do you really think King Boreas has 800+ chances to be sued if someone gets injured on a cache hunt? |
It depends on the cacher and their lawyer. It's likely that he might be possibly named in the suit. Would the plaintiff win? That doesn't matter. The fact is that it is very likely that TONS of people would be named in the claim and they would then have to waste their time and money defending themselves.
I think that's the most important part of all of this.
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moe the Sleaze
Geocacher
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1130
Location: Champlin, MN
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ice tres wrote: |
If a cache seeker can sue a cache hider for injuries during the search for "normally" hidden caches on public land, then I'm never going to hide another cache and will remove the one I did hide. Do you really think King Boreas has 800+ chances to be sued if someone gets injured on a cache hunt?
Has this ever happened? |
The State of Minnesota has MUCH deeper pockets than King Boreas and is therefore MUCH more likely to be sued.
_________________
"Hi, I'm Moe, or as the women know me - Hey! You in the bushes."
-Moe, The Simpsons |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
User list
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
