As many of you probably already know, The Nature Conservancy launched a widespread attack on caches located on property they claim to own.

The attack was launched by a Premium Geocaching Member named Daniel Grenier (dj_grenier is his Geocaching user name). The attacks have been in the polite form of an e-mail threatening the archiving of certain caches which The Nature Conservancy seems to think they own the land of. Their claims are rather dubious at best, as their own maps seem to be ambiguous at best to their property. The maps that I based the placement of several caches on, clearly determine a corridor through the properties made by the Power Line companies, which are openly and publically used for ATVing, Snowmobiling, and other activities, not to mention Geocaching.

After an e-mail exchange and a phone call (phone call was never returned) to The Nature Conservancy, and their CCing of emails to MainePublisher, and several highly placed Groundspeak officials, I decided to take the high road and self-Archive the two caches that TNC targeted of mine. However MainePublisher has already begun his list of archives based upon the TNC. I wish to avoid any issues with Groundspeak, and frankly, not give them, MainePublisher, or TNC the satisfaction of archiving my caches.

I'd like to see a good discussion on this issue, and offer if any of you are interested, copies of the emails exchanged with TNC and myself.

Begin!

As many of you probably already know, The Nature Conservancy launched a widespread attack on caches located on property they claim to own.

Since these locations appear to be on private property, the obvious question would be: "Did you have permission of the landowner to place these caches"?

:confused::confused::confused:

APPEAR to be on Private Property. Like I said, it is a dubious claim. I was placing caches (placed 18 months ago in these two cases of my caches) on trails used by the public over years and continued to be used by the public for all kinds of activities.

I take it you are going to take the TNC side on this? Why don't you look at the other caches which were targeted by this?

Anyone can CLAIM that certain properties are their own. And Groundspeak and the Reviewers take their claims as solid, before consulting with actual cachers.

I would be very surprised if the electric utility company did not own the land under their high voltage transmission lines. Granted, some are easements but I believe most are owned. You will need to check the property records and tax maps.

I would be very surprised if the electric utility company did not own the land under their high voltage transmission lines. Granted, some are easements but I believe most are owned. You will need to check the property records and tax maps.

Exactly. The property maps actually show my caches as on the border of the two land owners. However, the map that TNC sent me to back their claim, is at such a zoomed out scale that you really cannot determine which side the cache is on. I myself know, because I placed the damn caches but the TNC will skew the evidence and what they show Groundspeak and the reviewers. Today Marcipanek and I found a roadside park and grab located on the shoulder of the road in Phippsburg on a town owned road. Well, needless to say, that very cache was archived by Circles (cache owner) due to the TNC attack. There was no way that cache was on TNC property considering the town right of way on either side of the road and shoulder of road.

I had a similar situation with a few caches I placed on the power run in my area and after some thought I archived them. There was a property owner in the area that claimed to own any area he found a cacher and was harrassing them. I tried to located the property owner that was doing this to no avail so to avoid any further conflict for my fellow geocachers I archived a few caches in that area. Two of these caches were right next to the road in a tree and one was on a well marked snowmobile trail. It was a the only caches I have had to archive and I was quite unhappy about it but in the long run it was the best decision.

I think we take this risk with any cache, and if we do not get permission we really have little reason to argue. If you have permission it could still happen, but at least you have that contact person.

If you do not have permission prior to placing the cache and you can't prove quickly and without question who owns what I think the best action to take is to remove them. If the cache is near a property line there is always possibility of debate. Heck, even surveyors often come out with different lines a lot. And we have seen groundspeak archive roadside caches because whoever owned the property behind did not want the cache there - and I agree, I would complain about a cache in front of my house, too.

I'd hate this to happen to any of my caches but I am responsible for them. It'd suck if someone who did not own the land was claiming to own it, groundspeak does not have any authority to make anyone prove they are the landowner. I am not siding with either side, I am siding with what I think is best for the game.

Good answer Brdad.

What do you think of the way the TNC has gone about this though?

Good answer Brdad.

What do you think of the way the TNC has gone about this though?

If it was me and my mindset was that caches are evil and I thought these caches were on my land I'd probably complain like heck.

Most people will protect what is dear to them. Some landowners may be unrealistic about just how much harm a particular cache may do, but they have a right to feel the way they want. You can't really fault them for reacting, but hopefully they will be enlightened someday and realize caches could be a good thing. But some of the extreme tree hugger types may remain hopeless. :p

I remember reading about a cache hidden in conjunction with the event at Delorme where someone said there was some extreme damage in the area of at least one cache. If I were a land owner and had a cache on my land that people were tearing things up to find, I'd post the land in a heartbeat. Keeping the knowledge of that in mind, does anyone really have any fault to find with any landowner saying they don't want that on their land?

I agree that land owners have every right to complain but what I think Chad was trying to point out is that these folks may have it out for caching and are making false claims about what they own. If they are rewarded by GC.com archiving caches that are placed on public property then what would stop them from continuing to do this?

If they are rewarded by GC.com archiving caches that are placed on public property then what would stop them from continuing to do this?

In that case I'd say if you have a cache that might be targeted, obtain permission from the real landowner and put the contact info right on the cache page.

I remember reading about a cache hidden in conjunction with the event at Delorme where someone said there was some extreme damage in the area of at least one cache. If I were a land owner and had a cache on my land that people were tearing things up to find, I'd post the land in a heartbeat. Keeping the knowledge of that in mind, does anyone really have any fault to find with any landowner saying they don't want that on their land?

No one is tearing up the land in the case of these caches. They are actually VERY low impact. And TNC is doing this across the boards as an organized effort.

In that case I'd say if you have a cache that might be targeted, obtain permission from the real landowner and put the contact info right on the cache page.

In my case, the two caches that were targeted really are of no importance to me per say. Nothing terribly special about the locations to make me want to fight for them individually. What irks me is the general attack on caches. Also, the TNC obtaine a lot of this land (not only in the case of my caches) relatively recently. If you look at the cache by Circles in Phippsburg Old Glory II that she had to archive, it is located in an area called "The Basin" which until recently was owned by the town of Phippsburg. So it WAS public property and then it became TNC property. If the land before wasn't a problem, then why does TNC have to be so anal about a Geocache? I'd like for them to explain how a Geocache such as these impacts their enviornment to the serious extent of having to target each and everyone of them? Heck, when you take beautiful lands and manage them with the point of preserving the nature, and then exclude all of the populous from being able to enjoy the land, what is the good done? Geocaching brings people to beautiful areas that they most likely would never have known of, if not for the sole purpose of caching!:confused:

I agree that in many cases caches can be a positive thing, but a new landowner or manager does not have to explain a thing unless some agreement was made in the sale. If I buy property on which the previous owner allowed cross county skiing across, I as a new landowner may choose not to allow it no matter how low the impact it is. I don't have to prove it's harming the property or explain why I do not want the activity taking place.

Sure, it sucks that some forest freak feels it's nature when a 1200 pound moose digs a hole big enough to swallow a small car and wallows in his own urine, and yet one human hikes through the same woods it's destroying the earth. But all you can do is educate those that will listen and prove to them caches can be a positive thing.

Whether we like it or not, the ownership of land permits the owner unlimited control of use of the land unless it violates local or other land use regulations. Period. I had a cache placed on land with permission of the owner and the property was sold. The new owner was from "away" and closed all uses to her property and in spite of my efforts to educate her about caching, she didn't want anybody on this very rural property on the Choate Road in Windsor.

But there may be an issue here with TNC and that is what is called "slander of title." If they claim my property is their property without basis, then they have "slandered" my good title to my land and they can be sued. If the facts clearly show that the TNC is claiming title to land they clearly don't know, I would notify the lawful owner and tell them so they can stop the TNC in their tracks.

That said, we cache placers have an obligation to not engage landowners unless we are CERTAIN our cache is properly placed with permission of the real landowner. It's like deer hunters who take the "we hunted here for years" attitude. It's not good for the game so make sure of the facts if you want to challenge somebody's ownership.

APPEAR to be on Private Property. Like I said, it is a dubious claim. I was placing caches (placed 18 months ago in these two cases of my caches) on trails used by the public over years and continued to be used by the public for all kinds of activities.

I take it you are going to take the TNC side on this? Why don't you look at the other caches which were targeted by this?

No, I'm not taking TNC's side. But if you don;t own the property, and it isn't "public access" (state, federal, paper company, etc...) it is owned by someone, and any reasonable cacher would try and determine the owner and get permission prior to placing a cache there.

That said, we cache placers have an obligation to not engage landowners unless we are CERTAIN our cache is properly placed with permission of the real landowner. It's like deer hunters who take the "we hunted here for years" attitude. It's not good for the game so make sure of the facts if you want to challenge somebody's ownership.

Excellent point! :D:D

Maybe Geocaching should be limited to just guard rails and light skirts. If so, I’d be done with Geocaching. I'm with you on this one, Chadd. I archived 4 caches on Monday due to threatening emails from Mr.TNC himself AKA Daniel Grenier. One of these caches was placed on a snowmobile/ATV trail and the other three are so remote they have only received two logged visits in three months and are placed on a Geocaching challenge course designed for snowshoe caching which brings the impact down to almost zero making them what I'd consider an almost non-existent impact. The area the caches are placed in has been open to use by the public for as long as I can remember and unlike an abutting tract of land publicly known to be TNC property - sporting TNC signs on every third tree – this property has no signage stating that it is TNC land. Mr. Grenier also stated that I was to remove these caches which I will do ASAP but in my response letter to him I pointed out that my very well concealed pill bottle caches are inconsequential as far as litter goes in comparison to the dumped tires, refrigerator and TV located also on that same property. Hmmm, tires and refrigerators vs. camouflaged pill bottles. Think Mr. Grenier has an axe to grind with Geocachers?
In my response letter to Mr. Grenier, I also pointed out that Geocachers in general are very responsible people who love the outdoors and the beauty of our natural areas and explained CITO practices encouraged by Geogaching.Com and assured him that they will be more likely to pickup trash than many other groups using TNC lands. I also pointed out that The Nature Conservancies mission was “to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people”. The last time I checked all of the Geocachers I’ve met are people.
Contrary to those of you who support working with Mr. Grenier – I’m quite sure you are wasting your time because Mr. Grenier’s mind is made up and he will more than likely never sway from his stance without encouragement from his superiors - yes I believe Mr. Grenier is an Extreme Tree Hugger. Mr. Grenier stated in the email “As a policy, The Nature Conservancy in Maine does not allow geocaching on our preserves.” a check of the TNC Web Site for Maine states “Geocaching – Placing of geocaches is generally discouraged because of the disturbance to areas off-trail.” This statement pretty much shows that Mr. Grenier has taken it on himself to enforce a policy that he has made up himself. The words “in Maine” in this statement made me curious if all TNC states are created equally so I checked on TNC policies in other states and immediately found that TNC is in Maine is more or less anti geocaching state – probably due to Mr. Grenier’s aversion to Geocaching unlike states such as New York: They even offer geocaching introductory training. http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/newyork/events/events5227.html
and Virginia which publishes easy guidelines to placing caches on their lands: http://www.novago.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1765&start=0
Many TNC web sites of many other states provide easy to use guide lines and forms for Geocachers to establish caches on their properties. I personally sent three email requests to Mr. Grenier last year requesting to place caches on one of TNC properties and finally gave up on the quest after never receiving a single response.
I personally feel that with a group (Geocachers) with as many members as there are worldwide (4 to 5 million) that it would be a tremendous bargaining tool for us in gaining increased access to some of the most beautiful lands in this country. The Nature Conservancy is funded by donations and the loss of donations from 4 to 5 million Geocachers plus all of the other groups impacted by their excessive rules ie. Snowmobilers, hunters and in some cases even hikers could very quickly either put TNC under financially or encourage them to ease up on their restrictions. Perhaps dialog with Mr. Grenier’s superiors at the National level would change Mr. Grenier’s dislike for Geocaching.
I for one can be a very vocal person and will encourage all that I have contact with to refrain from supporting an organization of this type until such time that they have a change of heart and open their land to the use of Maine’s Geocachers.

Great article! Very informative. :D:D

One of my caches was removed by the infamous Daniel Grenier back in 2007. Hes out of the Brunswick office and back then, was at least nice enough to offer me the ability to drive to his office and obtain my container back. I emailed back and forth with him and he was pretty clear about the reasoning behind not having caches in "their" areas without permission. The particular cache in question was located at the Rachel Carson Salt Pond which is basically a large tide pool on inlet along Route 32 in Chamberlain / New Harbor. Granted, I was new to caching, but the cache itself was well above the high tide line and in a fixed bouldery location where there would be no geotrax or any disturbing of flora/fauna. I kept the emails for some reason. Here they are...
Subject: RE: RE: "Cooper Cache" (GCZGCP) - Location: N 43° 52.812 W 069° 29.007
> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:06:39 -0500
> From: dgrenier@TNC.ORG
> To: mastersonc@hotmail.com
>
> Dear Corey,
>
>
>
> The Nature Conservancy is a private, non-profit conservation organization that owns and manages more that 250,000 acres in Maine. We are dedicated to the preservation of the plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy works towards this goal through the identification, protection, and continued stewardship of habitat for rare species and the best examples of all native plant and animal communities, and the protection of large landscapes. Given our focused biodiversity conservation mission, the Conservancy takes a precautionary approach to human uses on the lands we manage.
>
>
>
> For The Nature Conservancy, stewardship is as dynamic and challenging as the wide variety of species, natural communities, and landscapes that we are trying to sustain. This is not as simple as "managing" property, but rather as complex as understanding natural life cycles, ecological interactions, and the influence of human activities. The goal of The Nature Conservancy's stewardship program and compatible human use decision-making is to sustain the existing diversity of native species, natural communities and key ecological processes, and to restore them where they have been degraded or lost, while allowing for compatible human uses where possible and appropriate. To this end, geocaching is discouraged in function of potential (and actual) site disturbance that lie at odds with our mission.
>
>
>
> Most geocaches are set up without our permission, which is infringement upon us as landowners. More importantly, it's not how geocachers are supposed to behave. The Groundspeak Company (i.e., www.geocaching.com), and other geocache sites, ask people who set up geocaches to get permission of the landowner prior to initiating any caching activities. Something you did not do... Know that there are instances where we do allow geocaches, but on a limited case-by-case basis, where we can deem that such activities can be conducted in a location and manner that avoid disturbance or alteration to any significant natural feature or area of ecological concern.
>
>
>
> I will hold your cache at the Brunswick office until spring, so no rush or worry on this point. If you have more questions or would like to discuss our position further, please give a call. I'd be happy to talk more.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Daniel J. Grenier, M.S.
>
> Land Steward
>
>
>
> The Nature Conservancy in Maine
>
> 14 Maine Street, Suite 401
> Brunswick, ME 04011
>
>
> Tel. 207-729-5181 ext.283
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Corey Masterson [mailto:mastersonc@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wed 11/21/2007 8:46 AM
> To: Daniel Grenier
> Subject: RE: "Cooper Cache" (GCZGCP) - Location: N 43° 52.812 W 069° 29.007
>
>
> I'll see what I can do to get there but I don't know how quickly it will be as I live in Bangor and only get down there once a month or so. As for no geocaching though, is there a specific reason for this? It certainly doesn't harm the land in any way as geocachers all respect the nature and leave things as they were. At most, it attracts a visitor to a place they may not have known ever existed, teaches them a quick bit of history, and sends them away with a new appreciation for nature.
>
> Was this discovered through the site and complained about or found by a non cacher / cleaning crew?
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Subject: "Cooper Cache" (GCZGCP) - Location: N 43° 52.812 W 069° 29.007
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:57:38 -0500
> From: dgrenier@TNC.ORG
> To: mastersonc@hotmail.com
>
>
>
> Dear Mr. Masterson,
>
>
>
> Your unsolicited geocache has been identified on the Rachel Carson Salt Pond Preserve; property owned and managed by The Nature Conservancy in Maine.
>
>
>
> "Cooper Cache" (GCZGCP) - Location: N 43° 52.812 W 069° 29.007
>
>
>
> As a policy, The Nature Conservancy in Maine does not allow geocaching on our preserves. I have asked the Groundspeak Company (i.e., geocaching.com) to stop advertising this location on their site and have removed the cache from the conservation area. Feel free to stop by the office to pick up your cache. We are open Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm; however, it would prove best to call first to make sure I'm in Brunswick (I travel frequently in function of my work.) I'll assume that if I don't hear from you by the end of January that you do not want your cache, and will properly dispose and recycle the materials as a consequence.
>
>
>
> If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone (207-729-5181 ext 283). Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Daniel J. Grenier
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Daniel Grenier
> Land Steward
>
> dgrenier@tnc.org
> (207) 373-5283 (Phone)
> (207) 729-4118 (Fax)
>
> nature.org <http://nature.org/> The Nature Conservancy
> in Maine
> 14 Maine Street, Suite 401
> Brunswick, ME 04011
>
>
>
>

Mr. Grenier states in his email that there are instances where they do allow geocaches. I wonder if anyone on this forum knows of any of those caches in Maine and what the circumstances are.

That guy makes Roxanne Quimby look like a chainsaw wielding, skidder driving tree hater....

What gets me is that they don't OWN all of the land that they manage. I wonder how the real owners feel about caching. Or do they give complete control to TNC. I know so very beautiful areas have been closed due to their relentless persecution of caching.

That guy makes Roxanne Quimby look like a chainsaw wielding, skidder driving tree hater....

What gets me is that they don't OWN all of the land that they manage. I wonder how the real owners feel about caching. Or do they give complete control to TNC. I know so very beautiful areas have been closed due to their relentless persecution of caching.

What about virtual caches?

What about virtual caches?

Now that would be a good question. An earthcache perhaps. That would be hard for him to refute given it could be right on a trail with no bushwacking required.

I am quite certain you need permission and a contact person in order to get an earthcache approved.

No new virtual caches are allowed, but it is possible the land on which one exists could change owners. I do believe some virtuals have been removed at landowner's request.

Waymarks are another option, as would be a multi with virtual stages inside the property in question. While a cache like that could be "snuck in", especially if the posted and final coordinates were off-site, I'd think it would be best to honor the wishes of these landowners and keep all parts of caches off them.

That guy makes Roxanne Quimby look like a chainsaw wielding, skidder driving tree hater....

What gets me is that they don't OWN all of the land that they manage. I wonder how the real owners feel about caching. Or do they give complete control to TNC. I know so very beautiful areas have been closed due to their relentless persecution of caching.

Exactly. Land "STEWARDS".

I think we should go and massively award our Geocaching Favorite points to all the caches which were archived due to this! HA HA

This has been a great discussion, so far! It's good to air out these concerns and work towards sorting out the truth.

In the past, The Maine chapter of the Nature Conservancy has not been open to Geocaching. Their chief complaint is unauthorized placements. Cachers ignore signs that give contact information; Cachers pay no attention to signs that state "carry in/carry out" and refuse to "Stay on the Trail" and even start new trails.

The Nature Conservancy is protecting land they feel they own. For example, Serious Tool was told that the land description his cache was placed on can be found in the York County Registry of Deeds - Book15291 Page 799-806, and in Book 4426 Page 64-65. Perhaps there's a surveyor in the group that can refute this claim. Or, Serious Tool could simply let us know who gave him permission to place the cache.

The Nature Conservancy has identified 2 caches on neighboring properties that are directing cachers to access their land, creating unintended trails. They have asked Groundspeak to consider removing them as a matter of good faith. The Nature Conservancy has identified 14 other caches on lands they have a legal interest in but do not own. If I understand correctly, the disposition of the cache will be up to the actual owners. The Basin area is not a new purchase. This is the second time The Nature Conservancy has had to ask that caches be removed.

As Dan said, "Whether we like it or not, the ownership of land permits the owner unlimited control of use of the land unless it violates local or other land use regulations. Period." A land owner is perfectly within their rights to allow snowmobiling and not Geocaching. To take this one step further: While CMP may have purchased a right of way to install power lines, the land owner is not required to expand the agreement to included Geocaching.

The Nature Conservancy has allowed Geocaching on their lands in the past. There is a multicache in Mount Agamenticus, placed with permission. There are several Earthcaches, which I assume were placed with permission. There have also been CITO and event caches in the past. Geocaching has a lot to offer The Nature Conservancy. The partnership between the Androscoggin Land Trust and Maine Geocachers is a good example the good that can be accomplished. Last year, several Geocachers were honored for the stewardship and encourage by the head of the Maine Department of Conservation. Some of the Nature Conservancy's own know how much trash we recovered and value the trail building efforts.

There are 100 land trusts in Maine. http://www.mltn.org/view_trusts-alphabetical.php Many of these organizations are eager to allow the public to champion land stewardship. How we present ourselves to the other land owners is up to each and everyone of us. Hopefully, enough of us can be the type of Geocachers that land owners hope to partner with.

I have a number of earthcache location on TNC properties and have found Daniel Grenier to be very helpful and good to respond to request. His issue started with complaint is unauthorized placements and the refusal of the owner to make modifications. In all cases when I have given them to him before submitting there have been minor modifications. The important thing is permission to place the cache, I have a folder of permissions for my caches and have been ask to show them by groundspeak in the past which is fine with me. If folks in the past had permission for all cache locations this discussion would not be taking place, IMO.

I have a number of earthcache location on TNC properties and have found Daniel Grenier to be very helpful and good to respond to requests. His issue started with complaints of unauthorized placements and the refusal of the owner to make modifications. In all cases when I have given them to him before submitting there have been minor modifications. The important thing is permission to place the cache, I have a folder of permissions for my caches and have been ask to show them by groundspeak in the past which is fine with me. If folks in the past had permission for all cache locations this discussion would not be taking place, IMO.

I hunt almost exclusively on posted property. How can that be you ask? It's easy, I go to the town office, get the owner info, call the landowner and try to arrange a face to face if it appears they may be inclined to let me use their property. This works EVERY time! Dropping off a field dressed grouse doesn't hurt either.

Tat is right that a positive relationship with TNC may be forged but it won't happen by threats or any other negative actions. ( Like me telling a landowner I'll sneak on their property when they aren't around )

The example of the Androscogging Land Trust and the CITO event would be our ticket to getting a more favorable response to our game. I agree that their current posture is just plain wrong and have written to them to voice this, and I am a member for what that's worth.

Perhaps a meeting could be arranged with Mr. Grenier. I would be happy to attend.

I hunt almost exclusively on posted property. How can that be you ask? It's easy, I go to the town office, get the owner info, call the landowner and try to arrange a face to face if it appears they may be inclined to let me use their property. This works EVERY time! Dropping off a field dressed grouse doesn't hurt either.


Dressed goose??? You can hunt on my property anytime. And you can place a cache on my property, too. (Park in the driveway and you'll have WiFi, too!) :D:D

(Oh - and I got RULost2? a K-Cup coffee maker for Christmas, so the coffee is only 2 minutes away!)

I'm curious what a "field dressed" grouse looks like. Does it get it's field clothing from LLBean?

This is a great example of how informative a thread can become on this site. Thanks for all the great posts. I will definitely be more aware when I place future caches.

It's a shame that we have to have the Roxanne Quimby's,the Nature Conservancy,and protests at military funerals ie Westboro Baptist church in our ranks,but that's the way it is. They are a plague (my opinion) and like all plagues we have to deal with it.

This is pertinent topic so I don't want to hijack the thread. Grouse, or partridge as they're called here are a snap to clean. Put the bird flat on its back, stand on the wings with the legs pointed towards you. Grab the legs and with a steady pull the breast and the wings will quickly separate from the rest of the bird. Chop of the wings, rinse and you're done!




I'm curious what a "field dressed" grouse looks like. Does it get it's field clothing from LLBean?

I just want to concur that I thank you all for posting in this thread. It has been very informative and I hope will continue to be. I especially glad that TAT weighed in on the topic as well. If anyone can shed light on the thoughts behind this issue, he can. So thank you TAT!

I did archive the two caches in question, in case anyone is wondering.

I am a very strong advocate of land/property owner rights, and agree that permission should be needed. However I believe you all know my opinion whether you agree with it or not, on public property. I as a tax payer am entitled to use the property that my hard work and legalized extortion by the state and Federal Government has paid to buy , and maintain.

The two caches of mine in question though, are in no doubt located on the right of way that CMP owns and did not newly buy from TNC. TNC obtained the property around the power line corridor recently. End of story.

I guess I only place GRCs from now on.

On a side note, were Groundspeak to retroactively require all caches that have been placed to show some sort of proof of property owner permission, or be archived.... how many would survive?

It's a shame that we have to have the Roxanne Quimby's,the Nature Conservancy,and protests at military funerals ie Westboro Baptist church in our ranks,but that's the way it is. They are a plague (my opinion) and like all plagues we have to deal with it.

Number Seven. I like you. A lot.

This is pertinent topic so I don't want to hijack the thread. Grouse, or partridge as they're called here are a snap to clean. Put the bird flat on its back, stand on the wings with the legs pointed towards you. Grab the legs and with a steady pull the breast and the wings will quickly separate from the rest of the bird. Chop of the wings, rinse and you're done!

Thanks Dan.

On a side note, were Groundspeak to retroactively require all caches that have been placed to show some sort of proof of property owner permission, or be archived.... how many would survive?

Another topic that may deserve to stand on it's own...

I would suspect a lot of good quality caches owned by cachers who are active in the game, feel their caches are worth saving, and are willing to put some work into their cache placements and maintenance. If were were gambling on a percentage, I'd say 24% would remain. I would do my best to keep all of mine.

It would be sad to see a few older caches go which are great caches but their owners are just no interested. But overall I think it would be a good thing and would support it.

While many caches would be archived, I imagine a new breed of placements would evolve. Caches would rarely be hurriedly placed, which I believe is a common denominator to lesser quality caches. Possibly fewer caches would be placed by hiders not interested in maintaining them, since they would have someone to answer to. I think cachers would feel more at ease caching in public areas knowing that permission was given for the hide. It would still not be perfect, land changes ownership - sometimes without notice, some hiders would "cheat the system", and some finders would still violate conditions required by the landowner, but it would still be a step up IMO.

Another topic that may deserve to stand on it's own...

I would suspect a lot of good quality caches owned by cachers who are active in the game, feel their caches are worth saving, and are willing to put some work into their cache placements and maintenance. If were were gambling on a percentage, I'd say 24% would remain. I would do my best to keep all of mine.

It would be sad to see a few older caches go which are great caches but their owners are just no interested. But overall I think it would be a good thing and would support it.

While many caches would be archived, I imagine a new breed of placements would evolve. Caches would rarely be hurriedly placed, which I believe is a common denominator to lesser quality caches. Possibly fewer caches would be placed by hiders not interested in maintaining them, since they would have someone to answer to. I think cachers would feel more at ease caching in public areas knowing that permission was given for the hide. It would still not be perfect, land changes ownership - sometimes without notice, some hiders would "cheat the system", and some finders would still violate conditions required by the landowner, but it would still be a step up IMO.

24% is a very optimistic estimate. I'd say more like 5% if that