NJ Admin

You keep saying this. Perhaps I missed your response when Harrold posted some recently hidden virtuals. They don't seem to be as nearly banned as you say. I would submit that it all depends on where you live, and who the local approver is. Case in point.. Do a search for virtuals from the zip code of 07701, outwards to 30+ miles. The last one approved would be within the "18 month" timeline I keep hearing bantied about where a decision was made by certain powers to NOT approve as many, if any at all. Since then, it has been a very dry area here for new virtuals. Fine. Not a problem, there are plenty of Altoids tins to seek out, and McToys to trade too. Who needs "History". Yeah, I am a relative "NOOB" around here, not knowing the politics and in-fighting among the forums regarding this subject. In a conscious effort to ADD to the community of a new hobby I just found, I had a series of upwards of 10 virts for my area planned, some regarding the seven Presidents of the United States that had lived and or died in my area. Some were just local "wow" factors. All were on land that would have prohibited ANY placement of a physical nature. I figured, what better way to start caching, than to attempt to add something that needed ZERO maintenance, and would get people out of their cars to enjoy nature and the history of my area. (Some of which, dates back to the 1600's) Long story short, after reading, reading and re-reading the 4 rules for placement of virts, and tailoring my 2 first submissions to fit said 4 rules, explaining exactly what, where, how, and why these would be virts, and how to verify through email to me you had indeed found them, not just googled up the locale, I received back rather quickly (also strange since I also keep reading about a backlog of caches needing to be approved) what I would deem a "form letter" stating I did not read said rules, spitting the rules back at me, and suggesting I re-read the rules, (did I mention I had tailored the caches to said rules? Nah..) and reply back to a different email address with my plea as to why I felt this was a wrong desicion to deny my cache submissions. I did not hear back anything from my plea as to why I felt this was wrong, or WHICH rules I had violated, if any. No problem. Scratch 10 new virt caches. I must assume that they do not want anymore virts in my area, or my submissions sucked so bad, that it did not warrant any more explanation. Then I started to see the posts in the forums regarding the lack of new virts being allowed. So bottom line, yes, I feel it all has to do with where you are, and who the approver is. And I also guess New Jersey just does not contain any more "areas that had banned geocaching. Such as Nation Park Service controlled areas and areas that a real cache could not be placed." Time to eat more Altoids, and shoot more ammo. OK, sure, Lets look at the virtuals. However, I review caches in a much larger area then just 30 miles from your house. Since the areas we cover tends to vary as new reviewers are added (like I used to do PA before Keystone came on board) we'll stick to the areas I've done the most work in, the NY tri-state area. In that area, there are 51 active virtuals that have been listed since the beginning of 2003. There are dozens more that were approved and and since archived for various reasons. Lets look at all the virtuals ever submited and declined for 15 miles around your zipcode. There aren't that many. 1 - "Here's a nice Virtual cache you can drive to. There isn't one of these on every corner, email me with the unusual place and the type of chili dogs they sell. Locals can probably guess the answers with out a visit but go anyway." 2 -"Rent "Clerks" - watch it - go to that location - take pictures - nuff said" 3 - The gravestone of the co-pilot for the "Enola Gay" WWII bomber 4 - A boulder on the beach with the American flag painted on it. 5 - A 135 yr old church 6 - "a monument honoring the death place of President Garfield in Elberon, NJ in 1881. The monument rests two feet from the edge of a very quiet street. Geocachers may see and possibly read the monument from the comfort of their vehicles. " 7 - "Marker is a granite headstone commemorating the passing of James A. Garfield, Twentieth President of the United States, who died on this very spot." (same spot as previous virtual) 8 - A picnic table in a state park (there are dozens of physical caches in this same park) 9 - "Perfect spectator viewing area for watching any attempts on xxxxxx cache. Bleacher seating available, binoculars are a help. This is actually virtual cache, email me the numbers which appear on the structure to log a find. " 10 - A park bench with a dedication plaque on it. That's all of them. Every single declined virtual in your area ever submitted since the birth of geocaching. Which ones did I judge unfairly?

Like Co Admin said, unless you are the reviewer involved, or the cache owner, you really don't know the full story. Not true. Multiple DNFs logged, leading to cache owner disabling the cache. 5 months after he disabled it, and over a year after it was last found, he finally archived it himself, 2 months after he was asked to check if it was still there. A responsible cache owner would not leave geotrash out there, so surely he picked it up before he archived it. Here is one of 4-5 deleted DNFs and notes that lead to the disabling and archiving of this cache, btw. Then we have this one: Sept 2002, cache is reported damaged. CN lives 800 miles away and notes he is not capable of maintaining it. There is also a deleted DNF on that cache, so that makes 2 dnfs on a cache the owner can not check on. Cache owner disabled cache in June 2002 after 1 DNF. Cache sat disabled for 10 months. I believe this one was one of several long disabled caches I exchanged emails with cache owner several months before, and nothing was ever done. Easy cache. 17 people found it no problem. 2 DNFs + 3 more deleted logs in the next 13 months, yet cache owner never bothers to check on it or replace it. One last thing. Archiving a cache does not mean there can never be a cache there ever again. Even after the cache was archived, CN could have replaced the cache and had it unarchived. It's been 2yrs or more for many of these caches, yet in 2 years he hasn't replaced them. Now we have someone else replacing them and then asking them to be unarchived, when the cache owner has shown no interest or desire to have these caches replaced, or to maintain them. I also find it most interesting that another person who is of the opinion that all caches should be archived automatically after a set number of months now has a problem with caches being archived.

Or at least get you a warning.

Well, I can't lock the thread in this forum, but I guess I could give everyone a posting timeout until KA wakes up. Would that make you happy?

I looks like you also placed the 2 TBs back into the caches. Heres your deleted logs for Scotty T and for Tool Time. Deleting the logs doesn't undo the fact that you logged them into the cache. Since they are still listed in the caches and you have them, you need to log them out again.

Cache Hider: All logs posted to your cache page including the reviewer notes are also emailed to you. Here is where I would normally suggest you check your spam filters, but since you got Wreck Diver's email just fine, that shouldn't be a problem. So you hid a cache, and almost immediately got an email from the reviewer, which it seems like you did not reply to. Two weeks later he emailed you again. He waited another week and a half and emailed you a third time. After more then 2 months without a reply, he asked that someone else remove the unapproved cache. If you really go 6 months at a time without checking your email, perhaps you should refrain from hiding caches. When you submitted the cache, you checked off a box that said you read and understood this site's guidelines for listing a cache. Those guidelines include sections on how close to another cache you may hide one, and also on maintaining a cache. You might want to go back and read them again. If you have any questions about them, GPSfun or myself will be happy to try and explain them.

Yes, Flo99 logged the TB back into the cache again, and deleted the log.

Added low res images. page 1 page 2

I had hoped to get this moved to a better host before posting it, but given the last few posts, I thought I better add it. Here is a pdf of the permit, sent to me by the DEC's Dave Forness. http://www.geocities.com/njapprover/trp.pdf Notice it is very clear on the insurance part.

This has nothing to do with ham radio. Topic moved to GPS Units and Software

Latest update. I finally heard back from Mr. Forness. I have a pdf of the TRP, and will try and get it hosted somewhere. I'll also forward a copy to the NY cache reviewer, since he will be dealing with most of these issues now. Sorry I don't have better news, it's been quite some time some time since I've heard any official word. I think the insurance is the biggest issue that needs addressing. This same thing came up in PA, and the lawyers for that state eventually decided that the standard insurance they already carry for hikers and other recreational users would suffice. I've mentioned this to the DEC some time ago, but have not heard back.

It's not me. I don't know what NY Admin did to deserve such a fate but my hats off to whoever it is. Just the fact that he has to put up with me is more than any person should have to bear. Nice diversion, New York Admin, I mean Joe!

It does, and it is. Add in the DEC stuff and it's a handful. Thanks for waiting. 10 more to review, then dig into the 75 emails still waiting to be answered.

I think there might be some confusion here. It is my understanding the Mr Messenger is Supervising Forester for the Bureau of Forest Preserve Management. NY state lands called "State Forests" are not "forest preserves" in any way shape or form. Furthermore Mr Messenger has clearly stated that State Forests (not Forest preserves) Are run by the New York Division of Fish and Wildlife, another branch of the DEC. Again I will say Mr Messenger has no say on what goes on in Region 7, UNLESS it pertains to a forest preserve which I really do not think they have any. It is Mr Forness job to run region 7 the way he see's fit and is accountable and responsible to the Albany main office. Forest preserves in the Catskills and ADK mountains stand as they are (forever wild) where as State Forests are managed for pulp wood. I know NY has one screwed system when it comes to the definitions of what is what. Being a NY'er I have traveled just about every piece of state land that there is. Now with all said, I could be wrong about Mr Messenger's title with the state of NY and I was mis-informed . And if so I apoligize. I think you need to re-read Mr. Messenger's letter. It's a DEC wide policy. You can argue who's in charge, but I can dig up caches that have been removed by DEC rangers from State Forests, Conservation Areas, and State Reforestation Areas, in all regions. We have two choices here. Either follow the current policy and try to get a workable, consistant policy in place, or ignore the current one and continue to place caches against their wishes. If you do that, they will keep removing them. If things get too out of hand, they may decide to make an example out of a few caches and press charges. Right or wrong, most of us can't afford to fight that battle. If a guy has to spend $100,000 in NY just to hang onto a personalized license plate, who knows how much an ammo can full of McToys may be worth.

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Messenger's position in the DEC is Supervising Forester for the entire state. In other words, he supervises Mr Forness. While I have not yet spoken to Mr Forness, other regional rangers have conceded that Mr Messenger's word from Albany would be the official response.

Actually, I think it might have been LakeGeoBen who first kicked the dog. Well then in that case, &%$*^%(*&(&)( !!!$#%*)(*&$!!! At any rate the dog is awake so now we have to deal with it. I'm pretty sure I pointed out much earlier in the thread, LakeGeoBen did not kick the DEC dog. They were well aware of geocaching, and actively removing them long before his letter. As a matter of fact, his letter was only asking verify what park rangers were already telling other geocachers. This is just one example, dating back to July, 2001 GC87 Just like any large organization, not every person in the DEC knows everything that's going on. The people in charge of setting the DEC policy are aware of this thread, and the issues involved. They are aware of how many land managers and even some of their own forest rangers feel geocaching is an acceptable low impact use of the parks system, not much different then hiking. They are already aware of the working policies in place in nearby states, and how many of those parks feel geocaching has had a positive effect, not a negative one. Instead of a few dozen scattered angry letters and phone calls, I strongly suggest you work with your local geocaching groups to present a more unified front. I'd be more then willing to work with someone from each group to share our progress.

Alan, I think Mr. Messenger covered that pretty well in the recent letter, posted a few days ago. So, as I read that, there are actually 9 different classifications in Adirondack Park. The 2 largest being wilderness and forest, but all 9 are still part of the preserve. For our purposes that would mean all 9 classifications inside Adirondack Park would be off limits to geocaches. If in doubt, I guess you could always apply for a permit and see if it's granted.

Googling DEC and Temporary Revocable Permit turns up over 50 hits. I'm not sure how to get it, but it exists, and seems to be very generic. I saw references to it being used for everything from allowing ATVs for disabled hunters, to mountain bikes, to trail maintenence by a ski club, to a pipeline. Google search of DEC website

I think we can pull something positive from that statement. Perhaps some guidelines specific to DEC property would alleviate their concern for the proliferation of caches. Instead of the 528 foot rule the DEC would require a .25 rule or a .50 rule. Also I would be open to a time limit on caches on DEC property. Caches would need to be archived or moved after say 18 months or 2 years. I feel now is not the time to be greedy. The feeling I got from Mr. Messenger is that they are open minded regarding geocaching but are also cautious. I think Mr. Messenger should join these forums so he can respond to suggestions and add his own. Mr. Messenger, Thank you for taking the time to respond. We look forward to an amicable relationship with the NYS DEC. I'll point out that what jmbella suggested has worked in many other states. Off the top of my head, the PA DCNR-Bureau of State Parks and Bureau of Forestry., The Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and Maryland Dept. Of Natural Resources are just a few that could be used as a basis for a NY policy.

I've merged Briansnat's Geocaching In Ny State Parks, The official OK??? into this one (with his permission), since it was actually about a NY State Forest, which falls under DEC jurisdiction. It is best to keep this discussion in one place, instead of spread out in several threads. I have received a reply from the DEC Supervising Forester in Albany. I'm afraid it appears to contradict what the forest ranger told the people at Brian's cache last week. I am posting the letter below. Keep in mind Mr. Messenger and other DEC members are following this thread, please try and be constructive in your replies.

Ferreter5: I would gladly help any way I can. Briansnat: There has been no change that I'm aware of. Like I said, I've yet to get any reply from Albany, though. I've asked the logger of your cache to forward me the ranger's contact info so I can follow up on that. If there has a change of heart, I would hope my letters had some small part in that.

This is the only official word I have to go on regarding cache approvals on DEC lands I will repeat the most critical part of this:"The DEC does not allow the placement of physical geocaches on Forest Preserve lands, but does allow it on State Forests and Wildlife Management Areas under a permit from the Department. DEC Forest Rangers have been instructed to remove geocaches that they find on state lands that are not covered by a valid permit. In case you are not familiar with our state land classifications, Forest Preserve lands are those state lands within the Adirondack and Catskill Parks, while State Forests are DEC lands outside the parks. " That does not say only only wilderness areas are banned, it says Forest Preserve lands, which covers all of Adirondack and Catskills park preserves. It also says all other DEC lands require a permit. Not some DEC lands, and not others. What this DEC permit entails, I do not know, nor have I been able to get an answer to two emails sent to Rob Messenger. I'll be following them up with certified mail this week. What I do know if that the NYSDEC has been actively removing caches from lands they manage for almost 2 years. They have removed them from conservation areas as well as forests and preserves. They have even removed them from areas where they only jointly manage with other agencies like towns and TNC. There are now at least 4 New York based geocaching groups, and as far as I know, none have made any attempt to address the DEC situation. As the primary reviewer of caches in NY, I'm charged with ensuring caches listed on this site comply with various laws, as well as our own cache placement guidelines. My main concern is the DEC clarify their regulations so I can follow them, not try and get them changed. If geocachers find the DEC regulations overly restrictive or unfair, they should be working with the local geocaching organizations to get the DEC to change them.

As I understand, the cache was labeled, and even the trip wire was labeled. I guess if you did happen to plant a bomb, labeling it as not a bomb will keep it from being detected. The cache was investgated as suspicious that's all, not blown up.

Like I said. I'm confused. Correct me if I'm wrong but if the clayjar rating system is the "official" system (and I don't know if it is), this means that the cache I mentioned before (wheelchair accessable - 3 miles) should NOT be rated a 1 due to the distance. Caches rated a "1" should be wheelchair accessable (defined as, able to roll up to, if not reach the cache from the wheelchair). However it's perfectly acceptable to have wheelchair accessable caches rated 1.5 or 3 or whatever when appropriate. Am I correct in any of this? Or am I completely lost yet again? Clayjar's system is the software implementing the rating system worked out right here in the forums, by the cachers, years ago. It's official in that whenever you submit a cache, the form you fill out tells you to use Clayjar's system to rate your cache, and links to that site.

Here's the one I send for almost every 1 terrain cache I approve.