Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: The Nature Coservancy Infiltration.....ForestDefenders in Flesh and Blood

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Belgrade, Maine
    Posts
    953

    Default

    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?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    China, Maine
    Posts
    241

    Default

    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?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    6,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fins_Up View Post
    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.
    DNFTT! DNFTT! DNFTT!

    "The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's to late to stop reading it..."

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JustKev View Post
    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.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brdad View Post
    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!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    6,061

    Default

    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.
    DNFTT! DNFTT! DNFTT!

    "The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's to late to stop reading it..."

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    So. China Maine
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    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.
    Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Solon, Maine
    Posts
    5,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CARoperPhotography View Post
    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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Solon, Maine
    Posts
    5,940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dubord207 View Post
    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!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Waterboro, Maine
    Posts
    9

    Default

    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/no...vents5227.html
    and Virginia which publishes easy guidelines to placing caches on their lands: http://www.novago.org/forum/viewtopi...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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •