[Az-Geocaching] Another Tucson cache bites it

[Edward C. Wittke]

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 
><<mailto:wood@myblueheaven.com>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
>>