The sad thing is, probably... It is unfortuanate that some
rationalize (I am only going three feet over the line...) It is so
much easier to ask the owner. In some cases, the answer is no, but
when you bring up the potential for additional visitors to a tourist
or consumer business by having the box there, the owner is often open
to the addition.

What a shame to our community.
GloHatchet

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, R wrote:
>
> Did the letterbox owner actually encourage people to ignore the "no
trespassing" sign and to step over a gate?
>
> Lone R
>

I don't think it's anyone's business to remove a box that takes the clues
onto "no trespassing" property.

What about urban boxes that are in parking lots, or other privately held
property? What about federal parks that forbid letterboxing yet so many are
there?

Should LBNA be the police to decide which boxes are and are not allowed? No
way.

Obviously if you print a clue out and it says ignore the signs, then you
make that choice to go to the location or not.

It is the choice of the planter and the seeker to ignore or support these
boxes.

My opinion.

RIFamily
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/2007
1:15 PM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What kind of person would


---------------------------------
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Okay.I must stop lurking momentarily here to make a comment.



As a long time boxer and one who works for an organization that does not
allow letterboxing or geocaching on its property, I have to speak my peace
here.



I may not like my organization's rule, but I honor it.



If you knowingly put a box or seek a box on property where the property
owner actively and clearly states their rules or desires by posting the
property (as "no trespassing" or "no letterboxing" as in my organization),
then that is WRONG...just plain wrong.



I manage two wildlife refuges and I spend a huge part of my time trying to
catch, inform and otherwise exclude another type of trespasser on the
property.namely those illegally riding ATV's and dirt bikes on this private
property. They ignore the 'no vehicle' signs and the posted rules. Many of
them will tear down the signs, create new trails around gates and other
blockades and their vehicles create a huge amount of damage to the
landscape. Heck, we've even had them chainsaw right through gates to get
in.just to ride their ATV. Is riding your ATV that important? Really? There
is the attitude of "Ha, Ha! what are you going to do about it?" This brazen
attitude and inequity infuriates me to distraction, and it horrifies me to
think that any letterboxer would adopt that attitude.just to find a box with
a stamp in it. Forget inconvenience, or gas prices or frustration..it's a
box with a stamp in it. We all love the hobby, but is it at the expense of
other people's rights?



Often this talk list flip flops about whether we should just do whatever we
want to do in this hobby or whether we should act as a cohesive community.
This is one of those things that does affect the reputation of the whole
community whether we like it or not.



Sometimes I think priorities get really misplaced in this hobby. We are all
excited by the thrill of the hunt or the artwork of the stamp or whatever it
is that sparks your love of letterboxing.but it is important to remember its
scale in the world at large. It is NOT the end of the world if you cannot
get a box. Please respect the rights of landowners.





Respectfully,



Kim (Rustypuff)



_____

From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of RIFamily
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 5:19 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [LbNA] Letterboxing: shooting ourselves in the foot



I don't think it's anyone's business to remove a box that takes the clues
onto "no trespassing" property.

What about urban boxes that are in parking lots, or other privately held
property? What about federal parks that forbid letterboxing yet so many are
there?

Should LBNA be the police to decide which boxes are and are not allowed? No
way.

Obviously if you print a clue out and it says ignore the signs, then you
make that choice to go to the location or not.

It is the choice of the planter and the seeker to ignore or support these
boxes.

My opinion.

RIFamily
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/2007
1:15 PM

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kimberly, I totally agree about respecting the rights of landowners.

I'm sure it's very frustrating to uphold the rules on a place like you
worked, wildlife refuge.

Chainsawing through a gate is unbelievable!

My point, though, was that LBNA should not have the responsiblity to police
these things. It is not their job to determine if a clue is "ok" or not.

We surely should each be responsible.

RIFamily


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/2007
1:15 PM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

AH!

Thanks for that info SC!

That surely is a horse of a different color.

RIFamily

regarding
I don't know for certain that the clues to this box were posted at
letterboxing.org, but since contact was made through that site, I am
assuming they were. The fact that the box was knowingly located on private
property is a violation of the LbNA terms of use. When posting clues on
LbNA, a person much check a box acknowledging that they agree with the terms
of use. In the terms of use (which no doubt, many people have never read
even though they routinely check the box when posting their clues), it
specifically states, "By submitting clues to this website, you warrant the
following: That there is a safe, legal, and trespass free route to any boxes
the clues may lead to."

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/2007
1:15 PM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Doesn't it state somewhere on the LbNA site that boxes shouldn't be placed
that advocate breaking the law? The webfolks who handle LbNA can't possibly
read every clue so many boxes get to gleefully fly under the radar, but I do
feel that, possibly if only for the sake of legal liability, it's not a bad
idea to remove the clues to any box where the landowner directly contacts
the LbNA folks to notify them that the box does not have permission to be
there. Up to that point, LbNA can state that they had no idea the box was
placed illegally. Once notified, they can no longer say that. They can
only decide to remove the clues. And, in my opinion, it's ethically
incumbent upon them to do so. That's one of the reasons some folks see fit
to *not* place their clues on such easily found sites as LbNA and atlasquest
because LbNA and atlasquest have become sooo blatantly public public public.

~~ Mosey ~~

-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of RIFamily
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:19 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [LbNA] Letterboxing: shooting ourselves in the foot


I don't think it's anyone's business to remove a box that takes the clues
onto "no trespassing" property.

What about urban boxes that are in parking lots, or other privately held
property? What about federal parks that forbid letterboxing yet so many are
there?

Should LBNA be the police to decide which boxes are and are not allowed? No
way.

Obviously if you print a clue out and it says ignore the signs, then you
make that choice to go to the location or not.

It is the choice of the planter and the seeker to ignore or support these
boxes.

My opinion.

RIFamily
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/2007
1:15 PM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

As always, well said, Spring Chick!

Letterboxing is misunderstood enough as it is - it is extremely important
that all of us act responsibly and ethically in our activities. If we are
caught doing something illegal (placing boxes on private property without
permission) it reflects not only on the planter who violated the law or trod
on the rights of someone else, it reflects on all of us and makes it more
difficult for us to portray ourselves as being responsible concerned users
of the outdoors and to avoid undue restrictions that self-policing might
help us avoid.

--
Barefoot Lucy
"It's not about footwear, it's about philosophy"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gosh Janila, that changes everything! Trespassing but with permission.

But now that the rules (owners) have changed, of course the placer needs to
also change the clues to a new location that isn't trespassing.

If the placer is no longer active perhaps someone would adopt it.

RIFamily

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/2007
1:15 PM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

While it is the responsibility of each individual seeker to decide whether or not to knowingly seek a box that is on private property, it is irresponsible of the placer to plant it there in the first place.

I don't know for certain that the clues to this box were posted at letterboxing.org, but since contact was made through that site, I am assuming they were. The fact that the box was knowingly located on private property is a violation of the LbNA terms of use. When posting clues on LbNA, a person much check a box acknowledging that they agree with the terms of use. In the terms of use (which no doubt, many people have never read even though they routinely check the box when posting their clues), it specifically states, "By submitting clues to this website, you warrant the following: That there is a safe, legal, and trespass free route to any boxes the clues may lead to."

While it is true that the LbNA webmasters and powers that be do not have the resources or the inclination to actively seek out boxes that are posted outside of compliance with the terms of service, they do have a responsibility to remove the clues if it is brought to their attention, particularly by the land-owner.

SpringChick



----- Original Message -----
From: RIFamily
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:18 PM
Subject: RE: [LbNA] Letterboxing: shooting ourselves in the foot


I don't think it's anyone's business to remove a box that takes the clues
onto "no trespassing" property.

What about urban boxes that are in parking lots, or other privately held
property? What about federal parks that forbid letterboxing yet so many are
there?

Should LBNA be the police to decide which boxes are and are not allowed? No
way.

Obviously if you print a clue out and it says ignore the signs, then you
make that choice to go to the location or not.

It is the choice of the planter and the seeker to ignore or support these
boxes.

My opinion.

RIFamily
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/2007
1:15 PM

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There's someone in our neck of the woods who planted a series of boxes
at a Girl Scout camp. The clues are only available to campers and their
families, and only while they're at camp.
EllBee

SpringChick wrote:

>
> It's interesting to me because the director of our camp is himself a
> letterboxer and we have talked about how we could plant a camp-
> themed letterbox, but not allow unrestricted access and just haven't
> been able to come up with anything workable that would meet the
> restrictions we work within.
>
> SpringChick
>
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tagging onto my own post to clarify that the boxes were planted *with
permission*.

EllBee wrote:

> There's someone in our neck of the woods who planted a series of boxes
> at a Girl Scout camp. The clues are only available to campers and their
> families, and only while they're at camp.
> EllBee
>
> SpringChick wrote:
>
> >
> > It's interesting to me because the director of our camp is himself a
> > letterboxer and we have talked about how we could plant a camp-
> > themed letterbox, but not allow unrestricted access and just haven't
> > been able to come up with anything workable that would meet the
> > restrictions we work within.
> >
> > SpringChick
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Umm, I can't see how Jay was trying to 'besmirch' anyone. In fact, it
seemed to me that he was bending over backwards to *not* besmirch by not
naming the box or the planter. I thought he was just trying to show how
little the webmasters appreciate getting emails from angry property
owners. Even though in this case there had apparently been some type of
permission given, it's a cautionary tale - as mentioned by SpringChick -
regarding maintaining your boxes and pulling them or finding someone to
adopt them if you leave the hobby. It's also a heads up for anyone who
has ever planted a box with permission or in accordance with the
then-current policies of the site. Owners can change, managers can
change, policies can change, all with little or no notice.
JMO...
EllBee

Nathan Brown wrote:

>
> Thanks Jan, I could not remember what box it was, and you reminded me.
>
> To the Drew Clan, nothing hacks me off more then posting about something
> without actually posting about something. If you are going to openly
> talk about something, then how about giving everyone all of the
> information, like the name of the box, "Camp Conrad Weiser." Further,
> maybe you could add some of the text that was on the clue, or at least
> the remainder of the line, "Start out by breaking the law and crossing
> the chain and "No Trespassing" sign between the two large stone entrance
> thingys. The counselors said it's ok." Or how about a link to the clue
> so as to enlighten everyone else as to what you are talking about:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/25brrc
>
> After all, if you are going to besmirch someone, the least you can do is
> give all of the information.
>
> Jan is right, the clue was written tongue in cheek, because he HAD
> gotten permission to plant this box on private land. The only real
> problem is that he has since fallen out of letterboxing and the land
> came under new ownership.
>
> Personally, I don't think it was a good plant, and told him so in a
> follow up to the find.
>
> Now as to the question of letterboxing.org regulating where boxes should
> and should not go, as some suggest, what difference does it make? Sure,
> they can regulate what gets posted to their site, and that is their
> right, because it is their site, but there is no way to stop people from
> creating such boxes and posting them on their own. It is up to the
> finder to decide if they should or should not go searching for these
> boxes. Does this mean that I think it is OK to plant boxes on posted
> private land, no, but is there really a way to stop it, no.
>
> Best you can do is discourage it by not hunting for such boxes.
> --
>
> Nathan Brown
>
> AKA Cyclonic
> Penncoasters.com
>
> The Insensitivity rolls on...
> Defeatism always leads to defeat. The belief that you can be
> victorious is the first step to victory.
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

EllBee,

I took the original post that way too - not so much meant to talk badly
about a boxer or a box (heck, I'll bet only a few readers have any idea what
box that one is!), but to demonstrate the response that comes from a
non-boxer who finds a box somewhere they feel it doesn't belong.

I thought several good thoughts and points were made in the course of
discussing on general terms how a box planted on private property can be
impacted by elements we don't normally deal with when we plant on public
property. I'm really glad Jay brought it up because it made me stop and
think about a couple of boxes I have on private property (WITH permission),
and wonder if I should do a better job of communicating with property owners
to make sure things haven't changed along the way.

I'm also glad we got a chance to discuss what the webmasters', finder's, and
planter's responsibilities are when a box is listed and/or planted in an
area that might be considered off-limits.

Lucy


On 4/5/07, EllBee wrote:
>
> Umm, I can't see how Jay was trying to 'besmirch' anyone. In fact, it
> seemed to me that he was bending over backwards to *not* besmirch by not
> naming the box or the planter. I thought he was just trying to show how
> little the webmasters appreciate getting emails from angry property
> owners. Even though in this case there had apparently been some type of
> permission given, it's a cautionary tale - as mentioned by SpringChick -
> regarding maintaining your boxes and pulling them or finding someone to
> adopt them if you leave the hobby. It's also a heads up for anyone who
> has ever planted a box with permission or in accordance with the
> then-current policies of the site. Owners can change, managers can
> change, policies can change, all with little or no notice.
> JMO...
> EllBee
>
> Nathan Brown wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks Jan, I could not remember what box it was, and you reminded me.
> >
> > To the Drew Clan, nothing hacks me off more then posting about something
> > without actually posting about something. If you are going to openly
> > talk about something, then how about giving everyone all of the
> > information, like the name of the box, "Camp Conrad Weiser." Further,
> > maybe you could add some of the text that was on the clue, or at least
> > the remainder of the line, "Start out by breaking the law and crossing
> > the chain and "No Trespassing" sign between the two large stone entrance
> > thingys. The counselors said it's ok." Or how about a link to the clue
> > so as to enlighten everyone else as to what you are talking about:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/25brrc
> >
> > After all, if you are going to besmirch someone, the least you can do is
> > give all of the information.
> >
> > Jan is right, the clue was written tongue in cheek, because he HAD
> > gotten permission to plant this box on private land. The only real
> > problem is that he has since fallen out of letterboxing and the land
> > came under new ownership.
> >
> > Personally, I don't think it was a good plant, and told him so in a
> > follow up to the find.
> >
> > Now as to the question of letterboxing.org regulating where boxes should
> > and should not go, as some suggest, what difference does it make? Sure,
> > they can regulate what gets posted to their site, and that is their
> > right, because it is their site, but there is no way to stop people from
> > creating such boxes and posting them on their own. It is up to the
> > finder to decide if they should or should not go searching for these
> > boxes. Does this mean that I think it is OK to plant boxes on posted
> > private land, no, but is there really a way to stop it, no.
> >
> > Best you can do is discourage it by not hunting for such boxes.
> > --
> >
> > Nathan Brown
> >
> > AKA Cyclonic
> > Penncoasters.com
> >
> > The Insensitivity rolls on...
> > Defeatism always leads to defeat. The belief that you can be
> > victorious is the first step to victory.
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
Barefoot Lucy
"It's not about footwear, it's about philosophy"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

While I'm not out to be a letterboxing police person, I feel that
anyone who heads people onto private property is not doing anyone a
favor. I can think of all kinds of things on private property that
could cause great harm. right off the top of my head I can think of
electrical boxes, water, dangerous terrain, a bull. (You think I'm
kidding. I have a few stories about that particular animal).

I'd never remove the box because I wouldn't print the directions to
go look for it. As for private parking lots, federal parks, etc. why
do boxers want to place boxes where they absolutely aren't wanted! I
own property in another state. There are liability issues. I'd hate
to have a box planted on that property without my knowing it, having
someone get hurt, and I didn't even know people were traipsing all
over it. It's great lake property by the way. I want to sell it. Too
much of a pain. Anyone interested? JUST KIDDING HERE.



--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "RIFamily"
wrote:
>
> I don't think it's anyone's business to remove a box that takes
the clues
> onto "no trespassing" property.
>
> What about urban boxes that are in parking lots, or other
privately held
> property? What about federal parks that forbid letterboxing yet
so many are
> there?
>
> Should LBNA be the police to decide which boxes are and are not
allowed? No
> way.
>
> Obviously if you print a clue out and it says ignore the signs,
then you
> make that choice to go to the location or not.
>
> It is the choice of the planter and the seeker to ignore or
support these
> boxes.
>
> My opinion.
>
> RIFamily
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date:
3/30/2007
> 1:15 PM
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Yes, exactly. I agree.

As I said before, placers and finders need to act responsibly if we care about our hobby.

I apologize if folks felt I was being harsh, but the over-arching point I was getting at is that it doesn't matter what the real intention of the placer or finder is...or whether there was more to the story than meets the eye or not...or whether the placer originally had permission or not. The point is that people outside the hobby perceive our behavior as letterboxers in a certain way. It reflects on all of us...because whether we like it or not, we are not perceived by the outside world as individual seekers and placers, but as a group.

And when a landowner contacts the webmasters with a concern like that, it is very clear that they perceive us as a cohesive self-policing group. Mistaken or not, it is their perception. It is disturbing to me that these people's first experience with letterboxing is one that is perceived as negative, disrespectful and supportive of trespassing or any other illegal activity. (WE know it's not true, but what good is that if others perceive us that way?).

You can have all the glowing praise and support for the hobby in the world, but it only takes one or two unhappy complaints to muddy the name of letterboxing for all. Ask a retail store or a restaurant, people who have bad experiences, are much more likely to tell others about them than folks who have good experiences.

I used ATVs as a comparison, because if we don't want to find ourselves in the same position as ATV people, where a few bad apples have totally and irreversibly spoiled the whole bunch (where I live and work), we need to police ourselves as individuals, and anticipate the range of consequences for what we do and work to solve problems before they are problems.

Those who publish their clues and those who do not are all included in this, too. Just because your clues are not posted, does not mean you are immune from damaging the hobby if your box is discovered by someone who gets mad because it wasn't placed with permission or because they are offended by its content or because they think it's in a dangerous place or whatever the reason.

I have a phrase that I use with the kids I teach all the time..."You get to decide how you behave, but other people get to decide how they feel about it."

It is not my intention to spin people up into a fury, but instead to encourage everyone to be mindful of what you are doing. I work with the public every day and do marketing for my organization and its programs and I learned long ago that public perception is a tenuous and delicate thing...sometimes swayed by a single word. It sounds terrible to say, but if you anticipate the ignorance and/or stupidity, you can often head off problems. So...If we anticipate the negative ways non-boxers might perceive us or misunderstand us, we can go a long way to preventing negative interactions. As EllBee says, it is a cautionary tale.

Ask yourself, how could this be interpreted? It may sound ridiculous or exhausting or you may think "too bad if someone doesn't like it" or "it's not my fault if they misinterpret what I'm doing", but as I said, it really does matter to our hobby as a whole, because what WE think or what WE intend is not what defines us, but how others react to it that will determine our reputation.

We get to decide how we behave, but others will decide how they feel about it...and ultimately what our reputation will be.

We can have influence over it, but will not ever have control over it. I care about what people think about this hobby. I don't ever want to be in a position where we have no place to go letterboxing...like ATV enthusiasts. Letterboxing is a good hobby, and I want those who find out about it to think so too. That will only come if we adopt a mindful, ambassadorial attitude. We don't have to shout the existence of our hobby to the world. We just have to anticipate what our interactions might be and work to make sure they are positive ones.

Again, Respectfully,
-Kim (Rustypuff)



---- EllBee wrote:
> Umm, I can't see how Jay was trying to 'besmirch' anyone. In fact, it
> seemed to me that he was bending over backwards to *not* besmirch by not
> naming the box or the planter. I thought he was just trying to show how
> little the webmasters appreciate getting emails from angry property
> owners. Even though in this case there had apparently been some type of
> permission given, it's a cautionary tale - as mentioned by SpringChick -
> regarding maintaining your boxes and pulling them or finding someone to
> adopt them if you leave the hobby. It's also a heads up for anyone who
> has ever planted a box with permission or in accordance with the
> then-current policies of the site. Owners can change, managers can
> change, policies can change, all with little or no notice.
> JMO...
> EllBee
>
> Nathan Brown wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks Jan, I could not remember what box it was, and you reminded me.
> >
> > To the Drew Clan, nothing hacks me off more then posting about something
> > without actually posting about something. If you are going to openly
> > talk about something, then how about giving everyone all of the
> > information, like the name of the box, "Camp Conrad Weiser." Further,
> > maybe you could add some of the text that was on the clue, or at least
> > the remainder of the line, "Start out by breaking the law and crossing
> > the chain and "No Trespassing" sign between the two large stone entrance
> > thingys. The counselors said it's ok." Or how about a link to the clue
> > so as to enlighten everyone else as to what you are talking about:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/25brrc
> >
> > After all, if you are going to besmirch someone, the least you can do is
> > give all of the information.
> >
> > Jan is right, the clue was written tongue in cheek, because he HAD
> > gotten permission to plant this box on private land. The only real
> > problem is that he has since fallen out of letterboxing and the land
> > came under new ownership.
> >
> > Personally, I don't think it was a good plant, and told him so in a
> > follow up to the find.
> >
> > Now as to the question of letterboxing.org regulating where boxes should
> > and should not go, as some suggest, what difference does it make? Sure,
> > they can regulate what gets posted to their site, and that is their
> > right, because it is their site, but there is no way to stop people from
> > creating such boxes and posting them on their own. It is up to the
> > finder to decide if they should or should not go searching for these
> > boxes. Does this mean that I think it is OK to plant boxes on posted
> > private land, no, but is there really a way to stop it, no.
> >
> > Best you can do is discourage it by not hunting for such boxes.
> > --
> >
> > Nathan Brown
> >
> > AKA Cyclonic
> > Penncoasters.com
> >
> > The Insensitivity rolls on...
> > Defeatism always leads to defeat. The belief that you can be
> > victorious is the first step to victory.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

OH KIM! There are a handful of people that I will be sending your quote to!

For many though, it really won't matter at all. They truly do not care about perception or reputation.

Recently one of the people I am thinking of said "I don't see the value in being on time".

Sigh.... she is about 30 minutes (to an HOUR) late for everything. To me that equals a reputation of disrespect to everyone around her, but she doesn't see it that way.

I really love your quote. It's going on my fridge :)

RIFamily


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/2007 1:15 PM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

LOL I must be dense, because I don't know to which "quote" of Rustypuff's you are refering. Do tell! :-)

Mary of TS

----- Original Message -----
From: RIFamily
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 5:17 PM
Subject: RE: [LbNA] Re: Letterboxing: shooting ourselves in the foot


OH KIM! There are a handful of people that I will be sending your quote to!

For many though, it really won't matter at all. They truly do not care about perception or reputation.

Recently one of the people I am thinking of said "I don't see the value in being on time".

Sigh.... she is about 30 minutes (to an HOUR) late for everything. To me that equals a reputation of disrespect to everyone around her, but she doesn't see it that way.

I really love your quote. It's going on my fridge :)

RIFamily


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/2007 1:15 PM

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"You get to decide how you behave, but other people get to decide how they
feel about it."

-Me



-Kim (rustypuff)



_____

From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Team Safari
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 2:08 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: Letterboxing: shooting ourselves in the foot



LOL I must be dense, because I don't know to which "quote" of Rustypuff's
you are refering. Do tell! :-)

Mary of TS

----- Original Message -----
From: RIFamily
To: letterbox-usa@ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 5:17 PM
Subject: RE: [LbNA] Re: Letterboxing: shooting ourselves in the foot

OH KIM! There are a handful of people that I will be sending your quote to!

For many though, it really won't matter at all. They truly do not care about
perception or reputation.

Recently one of the people I am thinking of said "I don't see the value in
being on time".

Sigh.... she is about 30 minutes (to an HOUR) late for everything. To me
that equals a reputation of disrespect to everyone around her, but she
doesn't see it that way.

I really love your quote. It's going on my fridge :)

RIFamily

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/2007
1:15 PM

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks so much for the additional information. Really, the original
posts made it sound like this planter was cavalierly ignoring
landowners wishes and encouraging others to do the same. But that's
not the case at all, now is it?

--F.Mystic




>
> Jan wrote:
> >
> > I very rarely respond to anything on this list, but since I recognize
> > this local box and feel that the whole story is not shown here, I am
> > going to risk a response. Yes, the clues do begin..."start by breaking
> > the law and step over the chained gate and no trespassing sign"
> >
> > However, before the clues begin, there was also a notation that the
> > planter had "met with the camp coordinators and they are not opposed to
> > people hiking around the trails. They prefer you stay out of the main
> > camping areas though. You might want to call the camp directly and let
> > someone know you are planning to visit." It has always appeared to me
> > that the breaking the law line was written tongue in cheek.

I actually have a somewhat opposite opinion, but it might not be based
on actual facts, only on what I can tell from the info I have thus far
-- which as we've just seen, might be incomplete.

Somehow the landowners found out about the clues on the website.
Probably by reading the box info... but perhaps not. After all, many
boxes I have found don't point to either website; the placers assume
you know about them already. If the box owner did not put their own
contact info in the box [as most boxes I've found do], would they put
the website info? Maybe, maybe not.

So the new owners bother to click around, find the website, figure out
how to contact the owner [I am sure it's not hard, but in all the time
I have spent on the sites, I have never bothered to look for that
info; it does take some effort]. Did they not bother to go and read
the clue itself? Did they not bother to go and MAKE SURE the clue was
in fact actually posted there, before they demanded it be taken down?

Of course they did, they directly quote the clue.

Which specifically says the placer got permission and that it was "ok."

But their email makes it sound like they just discovered this box, and
are angry that the placer is inciting people to "break the law."

RustyPuff is concerned with how letterboxers are perceived by these
people, and that is a good point. My own opinion is, what a bunch of
drama queens these people are, and thus I care not one whit for their
opinion of ME. It's not that I don't care what people think of me; I
try to be considerate and all that. I am just more concerned with the
good opinions of those I respect. And while letterboxing is simply a
hobby for me, they are running a paying business. Perhaps they need to
take some customer service training and learn how to not alienate
their potential clientele.

So I don't really know all the facts. Maybe there's more to the story.
But from what I am seeing, the landowners could have simply said
"There are clues to a box on your website, please take them down.
We've removed the box." Instead the message they sent seems overly
melodramatic as quoted. Not to mention deliberately spinning the truth
of the matter to make the letterboxer look like some kind of
inconsiderate boob, which is contrary to the actual clues as posted.

--F.Mystic

On 4/5/07, hannahkat@cox.net wrote:
>
>
>
> And when a landowner contacts the webmasters with a concern like that, it
> is very clear that they perceive us as a cohesive self-policing group.
> Mistaken or not, it is their perception. It is disturbing to me that these
> people's first experience with letterboxing is one that is perceived as
> negative, disrespectful and supportive of trespassing or any other illegal
> activity. (WE know it's not true, but what good is that if others perceive
> us that way?).

Plus I just went and looked again at the clue page and the planter's
email is listed right on there. Maybe the email is no longer valid and
they tried to use it to tell the placer the box was removed and why.
Did they try and email the box owner? Or did they go off half cocked
at the site owner?

Seriously. While they have the right to demand boxes be removed from
their land, there is a way to be diplomatic about it. Reserve the
indignation and accusations of "deliberately telling people to violate
the law" for people who really deserve it, you know?

--F.Mystic

I can't imagine them as drama queens whatsoever. You just might care one
whit of what their opinion of you was if you trespassed on the property and
a nice friendly non-dramatic black & white car calmly came along and gave
you a free ride to a jail cell for a few hours. :-) Now *that* might be
dramatic.

1. The placer had permission from the previous owner to place the box.
2. The new owners not only did not give permission for the box, but they
left the no tresspassing sign in place.
3. The new owners emailed the webmasters requesting the clues be removed
from the site.
4. Quite possibly the for-profit business is such that the new owners
really don't need or want the "good will" of letterboxers compared to the
potential liability risk they run of not being in control of exactly who is
on their property at what time.

I go on retreat frequently to a convent in IL that's at a beautiful bend in
a river. If I were to plant a letterbox close to the river, it could be
reached via canoe or kayak without the finder having to actually trespass on
convent property. When I asked the order that owns the convent about it,
they said they'd have no problems with it per se as long as I did it
word-of-mouth and thus controlled who came looking for the box, since they
have no security guards on the convent grounds and wouldn't want people
coming via land instead of sea to search for the box and thus possibly put
nuns and retreatants at potential risk. The order needs to know that
whoever is actually walking around on their grounds, which are extensive
beautifully wooded grounds, is either a nun, a retreatant, or an employee,
and nobody else. The property owners who emailed the LbNA webmasters might
be in a similar position of needing to be able to control who's on the
property so that nobody gets hurt and nobody gets sued. Do the nuns need
"customer service training"? Nooooooooo. Their convent is doing just fine
business-wise. God and the Pope gave 'em all the customer service training
they need. :-)

The simple black & white of it (no pun intended)is that, since the land in
the box clues has new owners, it *is* indeed tresspassing to letterbox on
that property, especially since the property *is* posted. And the last I
heard, traspassing is illegal and can get a person charged with at least a
misdemeanor. I know, on my place in northwest WI, I have my property
posted -- and it's posted every few feet for 120 acres along the road. That
means no hunters, that means no trappers, that means no humans other than me
or my friends picking my asparagus, picking my morels, picking my
blueberries, gooseberries, or hazelnuts, that means no strange families
sneaking up to my barns or pastures to get a look at "the pretty horses" or
"the cool alpacas", that means no humans other than me planting a letterbox.
And my no trespassing signs are another reason my clues up there are
word-of-mouth to folks I give permission to be on the property to find the
letterbox. People who come down the river via boat, waders, etc., have
every right to be there. People who come by land to tromp over hill & dale
thru my property have no legitimate right to be there. Last I saw, I was
the only one paying the property taxes for the past 30+ years.

It's truly unfortunate that the land probably changed hands without the box
placer knowing, but it did happen, and as the people paid for that land so
it's *their* land, and as they're using the land as a commercial enterprise
and thus have to worry about liability problems, security problems, safety
problems, asking a webmaster to take down clues ain't melodramatic. Since,
now that it's their land, it *is* trespassing. They might not be concerned
with having your "respect." They might just be more concerned with keeping
the property *they* paid for as they want to keep it.

Maybe as someone who owns property that often attracts trespassers who don't
believe they need a little thing called "permission", I can identify with
people who don't care much for trespassers. :-)

~~ Mosey ~~

-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of FM Girl
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:56 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: Letterboxing: shooting ourselves in the foot



RustyPuff is concerned with how letterboxers are perceived by these
people, and that is a good point. My own opinion is, what a bunch of
drama queens these people are, and thus I care not one whit for their
opinion of ME. It's not that I don't care what people think of me; I
try to be considerate and all that. I am just more concerned with the
good opinions of those I respect. And while letterboxing is simply a
hobby for me, they are running a paying business. Perhaps they need to
take some customer service training and learn how to not alienate
their potential clientele.

So I don't really know all the facts. Maybe there's more to the story.
But from what I am seeing, the landowners could have simply said
"There are clues to a box on your website, please take them down.
We've removed the box." Instead the message they sent seems overly
melodramatic as quoted. Not to mention deliberately spinning the truth
of the matter to make the letterboxer look like some kind of
inconsiderate boob, which is contrary to the actual clues as posted.

--F.Mystic

On 4/5/07, hannahkat@cox.net wrote:
>
>
>
> And when a landowner contacts the webmasters with a concern like that, it
> is very clear that they perceive us as a cohesive self-policing group.
> Mistaken or not, it is their perception. It is disturbing to me that these
> people's first experience with letterboxing is one that is perceived as
> negative, disrespectful and supportive of trespassing or any other illegal
> activity. (WE know it's not true, but what good is that if others perceive
> us that way?).

Mosey said:

"I go on retreat frequently to a convent in IL that's at a beautiful bend in
a river. If I were to plant a letterbox close to the river, it could be
reached via canoe or kayak without the finder having to actually trespass on
convent property. When I asked the order that owns the convent about it,
they said they'd have no problems with it per se as long as I did it
word-of-mouth and thus controlled who came looking for the box, since they
have no security guards on the convent grounds and wouldn't want people
coming via land instead of sea to search for the box and thus possibly put
nuns and retreatants at potential risk. The order needs to know that
whoever is actually walking around on their grounds, which are extensive
beautifully wooded grounds, is either a nun, a retreatant, or an employee,
and nobody else. The property owners who emailed the LbNA webmasters might
be in a similar position of needing to be able to control who's on the
property so that nobody gets hurt and nobody gets sued. Do the nuns need
"customer service training"? Nooooooooo. Their convent is doing just fine
business-wise. God and the Pope gave 'em all the customer service training
they need. :-)"

*********************************

I can imagine any number of places that might have an enormous amount of
goodwill, but can't afford loose practices for the safety of their clients.
Case in point:

I'm heavily involved in Cub Scouts and we are fortunate to have a scout
reservation in our council. It's a wonderful facility and I spend as much
time as I possibly can there. We are soon going to have a district campout
for cub scouts and the event coordinator, in a nod to me (more like a cheap
attempt to make sure she gets lots of my time on this event - lol), has
taken the letterboxing idea and applied it to things we teach scouts like
LNT and map and compass and land navigation. The event is called "Stamping
Thru the Woods". It has fallen to me to carve 140 personal stamps, create
15 boxes, and make another 7-10 station boxes. I will be going soon to
plant the boxes at the reservation and I went ahead and talked to the powers
that be so they have a firm understanding of what I'm doing. I took a box
to them and explained the activity and they had two questions that really
stand out in light of this discussion: 1) will I be leaving the boxes in
place? As it happens, I won't, but they would've been cool with it as long
as I only gave scouts the clues and there was no way anyone not in scouting
(i.e. not either a scout or a thoroughly background-checked scouter) would
know about the boxes. and 2) when I asked permission to bring
letterboxers into camp to help me plant, I was told they had to have
background checks first.

They were enthusiastic about what we are doing, but they were equally
adamant that no unauthorized person would be in camp as a result of our
boxes. They simply can't afford the risk that someone would venture into
camp to look for the boxes and inadvertantly put a child at risk, or worse,
enter camp on the premise of looking for boxes and deliberately harm a
kiddo. There are too many weird things happening in this day and age,
especially to kids, and places that cater to kids (or heck, anyone who is
seeking some respite, whether paid or unpaid, in a facility designed for
that purpose) just can't take a chance. They need to know every person who
is in camp, and if they don't know them, they need to know that there is no
possible other reason they would be there so they can run them out. I
understand their feelings and I completely respect that - my son is, after
all, one of the boys who will be at that camp many, many more times in the
next seven years, and I like knowing they take his safety that seriously.

There really ARE bigger things than letterboxing and the property owner may
well have only been exercising their own diligence as they protect others.
Who can fault that - really?
--
Barefoot Lucy
"It's not about footwear, it's about philosophy"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Oh sorry, it was not clear that this email came from a convent -- it
appeared to be from a for-profit campground. My error.

--F.Mystic


> and nobody else. The property owners who emailed the LbNA webmasters might
> be in a similar position of needing to be able to control who's on the
> property so that nobody gets hurt and nobody gets sued. Do the nuns need
> "customer service training"? Nooooooooo. Their convent is doing just fine
> business-wise. God and the Pope gave 'em all the customer service training
> they need. :-)"
>

Okay.let me ask you this then.



You say the following:



< good opinions of those I respect. And while letterboxing is simply a
hobby for me, they are running a paying business. Perhaps they need to
take some customer service training and learn how to not alienate
their potential clientele.
So I don't really know all the facts. Maybe there's more to the story.
But from what I am seeing, the landowners could have simply said
"There are clues to a box on your website, please take them down.
We've removed the box." >>



And:



<<.what a bunch of drama queens these people are.>>



What I am hearing is that you think that the landowners should have been
nicer about their reaction.that their reaction was 'over the top', perhaps.

Do you think that a landowner who finds something on their property they
didn't give permission for should just 'grin and bear it'? What if you were
to find someone else's laundry on your front stoop? Or what if you found
someone storing their belongings in your shed? Would you be inclined to be
nice about it? I'd be really annoyed and really wouldn't care why they were
doing it or if they thought it was harmless. It's the same for a landowner
with letterboxing. To me it would be the exception rather than the rule that
a landowner that discovers a letterbox (not knowing what it is previously)
would be pleased or excited about it. I'd think, 'who the heck does this
person think they are putting this here?'.



I think it is very unfair to call them drama queens. After all, it is their
land. Folks have been commenting about this particular incident saying that
we shouldn't have made judgments because we didn't know the whole story.
Turn the tables for a moment.do any of us always know why a parcel of land
is posted as "no trespassing"? Perhaps we don't know the whole story.
Perhaps the land is contaminated. Perhaps there is a dangerous animal.or
what have you. A landowner would be perfectly in their rights to react
strongly to trespassing. We live in a highly litigious society. They are
worried about all types of liability.



You also say:



< melodramatic as quoted. Not to mention deliberately spinning the truth
of the matter to make the letterboxer look like some kind of
inconsiderate boob, which is contrary to the actual clues as posted.>>



This is my entire point.



The reaction of non-boxers is out of our control. You're bothered (others
too) that a letterboxer was put in a negative light."an inconsiderate boob"
if you will. There is no "spin" here at all. It is a person's genuine
reaction.a negative one, but theirs in their own right. It doesn't matter
what the clues said. (How many of us don't always read clues properly or in
their entirety?) It doesn't matter what the placer's intent was ('the road
to hell is paved with good intentions'). What will have a lasting impact is
that these landowners now have a bad taste in their mouth about this hobby
and will probably tell others about it. Our indignation about this is right
here, right now. We'll all get over it, but now a whole new set of people at
this place don't like letterboxing and won't ever take the time to learn
otherwise. That's the problem.



My playing devil's advocate here is an encouragement to look at these
situations from everyone's point of view, not just letterboxers.

They cannot be expected to just accept unapproved objects on their property
with glee. Just look how reactionary and easily inflamed this talk list is.
Why do we expect the rest of the world to be any less reactionary or more
tolerant.or more delicate or articulate in their expression of their dismay
for that matter? This is why we must be pro-active and careful.



Thanks for listening. I appreciate that this thread has remained civil as
this discussion has unfolded.



Respectfully,

-Kim (Rustypuff)











_____

From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of FM Girl
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:56 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: Letterboxing: shooting ourselves in the foot



I actually have a somewhat opposite opinion, but it might not be based
on actual facts, only on what I can tell from the info I have thus far
-- which as we've just seen, might be incomplete.

Somehow the landowners found out about the clues on the website.
Probably by reading the box info... but perhaps not. After all, many
boxes I have found don't point to either website; the placers assume
you know about them already. If the box owner did not put their own
contact info in the box [as most boxes I've found do], would they put
the website info? Maybe, maybe not.

So the new owners bother to click around, find the website, figure out
how to contact the owner [I am sure it's not hard, but in all the time
I have spent on the sites, I have never bothered to look for that
info; it does take some effort]. Did they not bother to go and read
the clue itself? Did they not bother to go and MAKE SURE the clue was
in fact actually posted there, before they demanded it be taken down?

Of course they did, they directly quote the clue.

Which specifically says the placer got permission and that it was "ok."

But their email makes it sound like they just discovered this box, and
are angry that the placer is inciting people to "break the law."

RustyPuff is concerned with how letterboxers are perceived by these
people, and that is a good point. My own opinion is, what a bunch of
drama queens these people are, and thus I care not one whit for their
opinion of ME. It's not that I don't care what people think of me; I
try to be considerate and all that. I am just more concerned with the
good opinions of those I respect. And while letterboxing is simply a
hobby for me, they are running a paying business. Perhaps they need to
take some customer service training and learn how to not alienate
their potential clientele.

So I don't really know all the facts. Maybe there's more to the story.
But from what I am seeing, the landowners could have simply said
"There are clues to a box on your website, please take them down.
We've removed the box." Instead the message they sent seems overly
melodramatic as quoted. Not to mention deliberately spinning the truth
of the matter to make the letterboxer look like some kind of
inconsiderate boob, which is contrary to the actual clues as posted.

--F.Mystic

On 4/5/07, hannahkat@cox. net net> wrote:
>
>
>
> And when a landowner contacts the webmasters with a concern like that, it
> is very clear that they perceive us as a cohesive self-policing group.
> Mistaken or not, it is their perception. It is disturbing to me that these
> people's first experience with letterboxing is one that is perceived as
> negative, disrespectful and supportive of trespassing or any other illegal
> activity. (WE know it's not true, but what good is that if others perceive
> us that way?).





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]