Well, if you look at the PDF (page 10): http://data.itc.nps.gov/parks/grsm/ppdocuments/2002.pdf "Items found in violation of 36 CFR 2.10(d) are considered to interfere with visitor safety and present a threat to park resources.. As such, they may be impounded....[snip]" otherwise, I can't find the Code of Federal Regulations for arizona specifically. At 06:09 PM 4/12/2002 -0700, Jerry Nelson wrote: >It's actually not surprising that the ranger who is removing the caches >from National Park land is a cacher himself. It's obviously how he >thought to look for them in the first place. It's interesting how he >"blew his cover" here though. Snaptek guys, check to see if he is a user >of this listserv. > >My guess is that he's just trying to do his job as he sees it, but if he >did know about this e-mail list it would have been better for him to post >a tactful reminder to those with caches on Park land and ask them to >voluntarily remove them. He could also have done so directly by >contacting the cache owners through the main Web site. > >It wouldn't hurt to make him aware of this listserv and invite him to take >part in a discussion. Nobody here is so upset that they would berate him >with obscenities (I don't think). Communication almost always brings good >results. I doubt we'll get him to ignore the law. Many here probably >don't want him to. But we all might feel better about the situation after >having talked together. > >Jerry-Offtrail > > >On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:28:27 -0700 Scott Wood ><wood@myblueheaven.com> writes: >>I don't know how many of you are watching the following cache: >> >>http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=586 >>FirePoint at Scenic StarDance >> >>but if you are you probably noticed something very interesting today. I >>just recieved the following two log watch notifications. >> >>#1: >> >>Ranger51 has logged a cache on your watch list (FirePoint at Scenic >>StarDance). You can visit the cache at the following link: >>http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=586 >>User comments: >>The FirePoint at Senic StarDance cache has been removed under 36 CFR >>2.22(a)(2) Leaving property unattended for longer than 24 hours, except >>in locations where longer time periods have been designated or in >>accordance with conditions established by the superintendent. The cache >>has been impounded under 36 CFR 2.22(b)Impoundment of Property. Per the >>regulations set forth in 36 CFR 2.22(b)the cache will be stored at >>Saguaro National Park for a period of 60 days during which the owner can >>claim the cache by contacting Saguaro National Park, West. >>Thank you, >>Ranger Jackson >> >>#2: >> >>Saguaro Rangers has logged a cache on your watch list (FirePoint at >>Scenic StarDance). You can visit the cache at the following link: >>http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=586 >>User comments: >>The FirePoint at Senic StarDance Cache has been removed under 36 CFR >>2.22(a)(2) Leaving property unattended for longer than 24 hours, except >>in locations where longer time periods have been designated or in >>accordance with conditions established by the superintendent. The cache >>has been impounded under 36 CFR 2.22(b)Impoundment of Property. Per the >>regulations set forth in 36 CFR 2.22(b)the cache will be stored at >>Saguaro National Park for a period of 60 days during which the owner can >>claim the cache by contacting Saguaro National Park, west. >>Thank you, >>Ranger Jackson >> >>What I find odd about this is that it would appear that "Ranger51" >>removed the cache and logged it. They then deleted the log entry and >>re-entered it as "Saguaro Rangers" which is the same geocaching.com >>account that they used for the cache out in the East unit. If you look >>though the logs for this cache you will see that "Ranger51" had already >>logged this cache as a find. Infact, "Ranger51" is a fairly active cache >>hunter here in Tucson. >> >>I am not saying that there appears to be any hypocrisy but.... >> >> >> >>Scott >>Team My Blue Heaven >>www.myblueheaven.com/geocache >>