> On Tuesday 05 November 2002 01:56 pm, Team Tierra Buena wrote:
> > Ms Rasmussen may well continue to sound the alarm, as is 
> her right. I 
> > believe our most powerful rebuttal is to practice responsible 
> > Geocaching, when both hiding and hunting.
> 
> I would have to disagree a little with this statement.  It is 
> definalty her 
> right to voice her concern to her superiors, and she should 
> feel free to do 
> so, but she seems to continually subject us to libel and 
> slander in very 
> public forums.

I won't argue that the article seems to lump all cachers and ATV'ers
into an "axis of evil". I think that it's important to remember this was
written before the meeting took place. The meeting may not have changed
her mind, but the meeting (and whatever might have taken place within
SHPO as a result of the meeting) may have moderated her public position.


> 
> This article for the site stewards paints a picture of 
> geocaching being such a 
> bad thing that there is almost no legal place left for us to 
> hide cache 
> (which is not true, the only people that said not to put 
> caches on their land 
> was the various indian tribal lands), so therefore any cache 
> that a site 
> steward might find on or OFF of an arch site MUST have been put there 
> illegally.

Except that Site Stewards have no enforcement powers or
responsibilities. I believe all *they* can legally do is notify the
appropriate authorities. If the cache is placed with permission, no
problem. If the responsible land management agency doesn't know it's
there or why it's there, it's litter.

This begs the question of what, if anything, we should do about caches
that have been placed without permission long before it became an issue.
But I think we should start a separate thread for that.

> I would still like know what it takes to get an archeology 
> site taken off of 
> the list of sites that get monitored.

The Site Stewards can choose to monitor anything they want. To the best
of my knowledge they can't do anything other than notify the authorities
that do have enforcement authority.

> The argument after the sep 27 meeting with geocachers vs Ms. 
> Rasmussen, 
> shouldn't have happened.

But it did. And we can't let that obscure all the good that came out of
the meeting itself. 


 but if it's a 
> govt has put a 
> trail, bridge, and sign there so that they can encourage 
> people to visit the 
> site.... and we also have the blessing of the forrest 
> service, then we are 
> right.

And I honestly believe that officially, the SHPO office will agree with
that. Just as I honestly believe what Rand Hubbell said about allowing
caching in Maricopa County Parks with certain restrictions, even though
their web site continues to contradict his statements at the meeting. I
think the only thing would be to change your use of the word "blessing"
into "permission".

 
> because the site 
> should have been taken off the list of sites to monitor.  

The "list" to which I think you're referring is Shelly Rasmussen's list,
not SHPO's. And in my opinion, she compiled much of that list based on
conjecture and misinformation. 

> It just seems like those pictures that you see where a sign 
> says, "no stopping 
> at any time" and a stop sign about 15 feet in front of it.

Those were funny photos you attached.

I'm not disagreeing with you, Brian. I just think it's important to
emphasize that while Shelly Rasmussen cares very deeply about her desire
to protect archaeological sites, she has no official capacity and is
speaking only as a concerned citizen, albeit one who volunteers with an
organization (SHPO) that has a mission closely aligned with her
concerns. And I no longer think that SHPO  shares her view that
Geocaching in general is a threat to that mission.

Steve
Team Tierra Buena