Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
migo · Michigan Geocachers' Organization (MIGO)
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Last Call for Lyndon Park Geocache   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #1413 of 1430 |
Re: [migo] Re: Last Call for Lyndon Park Geocache

Knowing this, why not keep the cache going, people!  No necessity in removing it if the land in question is not part of the removal request territories.  And remember, you can always apply for a permit to put it out if it has to be removed.
 
This is what I mean about people responding emotionally and not doing empirical research on a subject *before* making a decision.  And some people won't accept an answer "because somebody else (presumably an 'authority' figure of some type) stated that they couldn't do something and they choose to go with what the person says regardless of what's actually on the books.
 
Case in Point:  I've been an Amateur Radio Operator (Ham Operator) since 1991.  I used to live in the city of Gaylord, in Otsego County.  Well, there's a county ordinance that says that if a person wants to have a radio capable of receiving police band calls in their vehicle, that they have to have a special permit from the office of the Sheriff.  (I don't agree with this, I think that everyone has the *right* to listen to anything they want, regardless of it being in their vehicle or in their home; however, this is the ordinance, just thought I'd clarify my own opinion here).
 
Continuing, I ran across this guy who was a volunteer firefighter for one of the outlying township fire barns, and he was all up in the air about how he had this permit that allowed him to be able to have a two-way radio or scanner that could receive fire and police bands.
 
Well, I also know that the same ordinance (or maybe it's a state law now that I think about it, I'll look it up again, as it's been a while) also states that a person who possesses an Amateur Radio (Ham) license of Technician Class or above can have a scanner or radio that can receive the police bands.  This is primarily due to the fact that most Ham mobile units and handheld "walkie talkies" have wide-band receive from about 1MHz to 1.2GHz in some models; in short, they can receive all but the digitally-encoded trunking bands (primarily used in the 800 to 900MHz range) without any major problems.
 
An Amateur Radio license is a Federal license, so there is some protection from state laws overriding the Ham licensee.  Hence the <either state law or ordinance> being present.  Well, this guy was all the pride of his knowledge base ;).  He even went so far as to produce a xeroxed copy of the law from his pocket.  So I take this thing, and read down a bit.  Sure enough, there it was in black and white:  the aforementioned paragraph exempting hams from needing this Sheriff Dept. approval permit (again, something I think is a bit much like asking your parents to walk across the street after you've turned 18..sheesh...but I digress ;-^).
 
What he did after that just boggles my mind:  I pointed out the paragraph to him, produced my own ham license from my own wallet, and indicated my Technician Class status, thereby showing my exemption.  This guy wouldn't budge an inch from his opinion.  I then *read the statute **aloud** * to him, but it didn't make any difference.  There it was in black and white, with me enunciating clearly the words of the <ordinance/law> and he still stated that I, Myself, needed the permit from the Sheriff's Dept.
 
Hee hee hee.  Considering that a Michigan State Trooper is the Emergency Coordinator in Otsego County, I would think that if this were an issue, it'd have been brought up a long long time ago.  Well, some people just can't admit that they are in error--even when the proof is, literally, staring them in the face, and when someone is pointing it out to them, directly!
 
So for you who are considering removing the cache:  PLEASE GET THE FACTS BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO REMOVE IT, PLEASE!  Don't go around saying that you have to do such and such because you just heard it had to be that way.  Get the facts!  Now, if you want to remove it because you want to, that's your business; after all, it's your cache, not mine.  Still, if you're removing it *because you're scared,* perhpas some educational endeavor is needed on your part to remove all doubt.  No one's going to castigate you if it's on land it shouldn't be on--save for the likes of a high-security area, but caches should not be placed on or near those areas to begin with--the only thing that'd happen is it would be removed or you would be either asked or instructed to remove it by authorities.  Just comply with them and be polite.  It's not a hard thing to accomplish.
 
However, if it's not in the aforementioned State Game Area, don't worry about it.  It's probably okay.  Get your facts straight.  Don't act without KNOWING WHAT IS REAL AND WHAT IS MERELY *PERCEIVED TO BE REAL*.
 
Get outside.  Go Geocaching!
 
Warm regards,
Firefishe/N8PZT
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Rusty
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 4:44 PM
Subject: [migo] Re: Last Call for Lyndon Park Geocache

I'm not sure who still checks this forum but I will reply anyways.

Archiving your cache is your call, and its been out for a year which
is a good run.  But I should set the record straight, the Pinckney &
Waterloo Rec areas are not part of the land the DNR has asked for
caches to be removed from.  Their request ONLY applies to State Game
Areas.  The state parks, forests, and rec areas each operate under
different management and sets of rules.

This is not an attempt to sway your opinion one way or the other, I
just wanted to give the facts.

Cache on,
Rusty...


--- In migo@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Myers" <bmyers1959@y...> wrote:
> LAST CALL!  The Lyndon Park Geocache (Washtenaw County, N 42°
22.981
> W 084° 03.712) will soon be archived.  Its been operating almost
one
> year, and the State of Michigan now has second thoughts about
> geocaches on state owned land. 
>
> The last weekend to log this cache will be the weekend of June 27 -

> 29, 2003.  The cache will probably be archived on July 4, 2003.
>
> Brad and Chris have enjoyed reading all of your logs, and
appreciate
> everyone's responsible use of the land and geocache.



--------
Visit the web site at www.mi-geocaching.org
Don't forget to help MiGO out by using our Amazon store to shop for the holidays!  We get up to 5% on every item purchased through our site!
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
migo-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Tue Jun 24, 2003 9:25 pm

geocacherzog
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #1413 of 1430 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

LAST CALL! The Lyndon Park Geocache (Washtenaw County, N 42° 22.981 W 084° 03.712) will soon be archived. Its been operating almost one year, and the State...
Brad Myers
bmyers1959
Offline Send Email
Jun 24, 2003
5:08 pm

I'm not sure who still checks this forum but I will reply anyways. Archiving your cache is your call, and its been out for a year which is a good run. But I...
Rusty
rustypayne
Offline Send Email
Jun 24, 2003
8:44 pm

And for those still lurking here, a clarification. Not many check this forum any longer because the conversation has moved over to our web site at ...
Mike Wunderlich
trippy1976
Offline Send Email
Jun 25, 2003
12:42 am

... Rusty, Quantum Fishe, Mike Wunderlich, et al: Thanks for setting me straight. I am now better educated that there are differences between recreation...
Brad Myers
bmyers1959
Offline Send Email
Jun 26, 2003
4:57 pm

The link in the news post takes you to the geocaching.com boards. That comment was made before clarification of the situation. It's a long conversation, but...
Mike Wunderlich
trippy1976
Offline Send Email
Jun 26, 2003
7:29 pm

Knowing this, why not keep the cache going, people! No necessity in removing it if the land in question is not part of the removal request territories. And...
The Quantum Fishe
geocacherzog
Offline Send Email
Jun 24, 2003
9:26 pm
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help