[Az-Geocaching] Another Tucson cache bites it
Jerry Nelson
listserv@azgeocaching.com
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 18:09:58 -0700
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
----__JNP_000_6732.70ad.253a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
----__JNP_000_6732.70ad.253a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>It's actually not surprising that the ranger who is removing the =
caches=20
from National Park land is a cacher himself. It's obviously how he =
thought=20
to look for them in the first place. It's interesting how he "blew =
his=20
cover" here though. Snaptek guys, check to see if he is a user of =
this=20
listserv.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My guess is that he's just trying to do his job as he sees it, but if =
he=20
did know about this e-mail list it would have been better for him to post a=
=20
tactful reminder to those with caches on Park land and ask them to =
voluntarily=20
remove them. He could also have done so directly by contacting the =
cache=20
owners through the main Web site. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It wouldn't hurt to make him aware of this listserv and invite him to =
take=20
part in a discussion. Nobody here is so upset that they would berate =
him=20
with obscenities (I don't think). Communication almost always brings =
good=20
results. I doubt we'll get him to ignore the law. Many here =
probably=20
don't want him to. But we all might feel better about the situation after =
having=20
talked together.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jerry-Offtrail</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:28:27 -0700 Scott Wood <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:wood@myblueheaven.com">wood@myblueheaven.com</A>> writes:=
</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: =
10px">
<DIV>I don't know how many of you are watching the following cache:<BR><=
BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=3D586"=20
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=3D=
586</A><BR><FONT=20
face=3DVerdana><B>FirePoint at Scenic StarDance <BR><BR></B>but if you =
are you=20
probably noticed something very interesting today. I just recieved =
the=20
following two log watch notifications.<BR><BR>#1:<BR><BR></FONT>Ranger51 =
has=20
logged a cache on your watch list (FirePoint at Scenic StarDance). You =
can=20
visit the cache at the following link:<BR><FONT color=3D#0000ff><U><A=20
href=3D"http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=3D586"=20
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=3D=
586<BR></A></U></FONT>User=20
comments: <BR>The FirePoint at Senic StarDance cache has been removed =
under 36=20
CFR 2.22(a)(2) Leaving property unattended for longer than 24 hours, =
except in=20
locations where longer time periods have been designated or in accordance=
with=20
conditions established by the superintendent. The cache has been =
impounded=20
under 36 CFR 2.22(b)Impoundment of Property. Per the regulations set =
forth in=20
36 CFR 2.22(b)the cache will be stored at Saguaro National Park for a =
period=20
of 60 days during which the owner can claim the cache by contacting =
Saguaro=20
National Park, West.<BR>Thank you,<BR>Ranger Jackson<BR><BR>#2:<BR><BR>=
Saguaro=20
Rangers has logged a cache on your watch list (FirePoint at Scenic =
StarDance).=20
You can visit the cache at the following link:<BR><FONT color=3D#0000ff><=
U><A=20
href=3D"http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=3D586"=20
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=3D=
586<BR></A></U></FONT>User=20
comments: <BR>The FirePoint at Senic StarDance Cache has been removed =
under 36=20
CFR 2.22(a)(2) Leaving property unattended for longer than 24 hours, =
except in=20
locations where longer time periods have been designated or in accordance=
with=20
conditions established by the superintendent. The cache has been =
impounded=20
under 36 CFR 2.22(b)Impoundment of Property. Per the regulations set =
forth in=20
36 CFR 2.22(b)the cache will be stored at Saguaro National Park for a =
period=20
of 60 days during which the owner can claim the cache by contacting =
Saguaro=20
National Park, west.<BR>Thank you,<BR>Ranger Jackson<BR><BR>What I find =
odd=20
about this is that it would appear that "Ranger51" removed the cache and=
=20
logged it. They then deleted the log entry and re-entered it as "=
Saguaro=20
Rangers" which is the same geocaching.com account that they used for the =
cache=20
out in the East unit. If you look though the logs for this cache =
you=20
will see that "Ranger51" had already logged this cache as a find. =20
Infact, "Ranger51" is a fairly active cache hunter here in Tucson.<BR><BR=
>I am=20
not saying that there appears to be any hypocrisy=20
but....<BR><BR> </DIV><BR>
<DIV>Scott</DIV>
<DIV>Team My Blue Heaven</DIV>
<DIV><A href=3D"http://www.myblueheaven.com/geocache"=20
EUDORA=3D"AUTOURL">www.myblueheaven.com/geocache</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
----__JNP_000_6732.70ad.253a--