J the Goat

Wait, what?

I've not had much luck with friendly people in Roseville. Those I dealt with, and it wasn't on but one or two occasions, seemed very stuck up and overly conservative. Probably (hopefully) the vast minority. It is pretty there though, I have visited a few of the parks and they are quite well maintained and clean.

You mean like banning geocaching in all the wooded areas in the county? Um, no thanks. Personally I'd rather have caches in a nice wooded area than in a mall parking lot any day. Unfortunately, too many people with your attitude are ruining it for the rest of us that know how to hike through a forest without tromping all over it. I am removing myself from this thread, as there seem to be several of you who read only what is convenient to your point and not everything stated. I'm actually stressed about this discussion, and that's not why I'm here. Go ahead and continue not paying attention to what's actually said and only reading the scattered parts that "help" you with your argument.

+1. How was my description?

Good thread. I'm about 2 hours North of San Francisco in California. Small town of 15K called Ukiah. We're about 40 miles as the crow flies from the Pacific (which amounts to an hour and a half drive over one of 4 extremely windy mountain roads), 4 hours from Lake Tahoe Nevada, and about 8 hours or so from Oregon. Seasonally our summers are quite warm, regularly over 100 for weeks at a time, and our winters are pretty wet, however snow here is rare. The white stuff does tend to fall about 30 minutes North of us, but only sticks around for a day or two for the most part. Spring and Fall are wonderful here. Mountains? Yup, we got 'em. Lots of private property up there though, so lots of the area you see when looking that might be good for cache placement is off limits. We have the Eel River, the Russian River, and lots and lots of creeks winding through the area. Watch out for snakes! Lots of Rattlers, especially this time of year. I work at the local hospital and we've had 4 bites come in over the last month. Ticks are plentiful here too, and I've even seen a few scorpions. Our biggest danger though, are the large marijuana gardens that are being grown and tended in the national forests in the area. They don't call it the emerald triangle for no reason, the plant grows extremely well here, and many people from outside the area know it and take advantage of it. It's not uncommon to have folks guarding these gardens with any number of weapon types, booby traps, or dogs. They also have no reservations about using any of the above listed items. Our cache load is a little on the thin side, but many of the hides are quality. I think there's only 2 LPC's in town, and one was archived recently. Ammo cans 'aplenty, that's for sure. There are only 4 or 5 of us who hide caches though, at least for now. Many of the older hides' owners are either out of the game or have stopped placing caches for some reason or another. The few of us that are around are a friendly bunch though, and to my knowledge we have nothing that even remotely resembles a cache maggot. Come on up, we'll show you some nice caches and beautiful area.

At least in my area, putting down branches to block a shortcut is the standard way used by all agencies to tell hikers to stay on the trail, and most people respect it. But once something opens up it can be harder to close and others will follow. I would like to think that cachers did not remove the signs - even assuming that the cache contributed to the "unauthorized trail" forming. Yes, but it sounds as if the branches and signage were put up (and unfortunately taken down) well after the formation of the off-trail trail. I'm just getting really tired of people spouting things like "it's your fault, nobody does what they're supposed to, everyone else is doing stuff wrong...." Take a little responsibility for the situation. Quit throwing a fit about how everyone else is pissing in your cheerios.

I'm still maintaining that if you're going to throw a fit about people staying on trail, it needs to be well posted. This area clearly was not for some time. The signs that were placed should have been left alone, but maybe if it were better marked, you'd have less problems.

What?! There's no exams in summer camp!

I wasn't mad. But I will be if you don't GET OFF MY LAWN!!!! Wait, I just have to finish building this geotrail...

YAAAAAAYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!! The salty old avatar isn't mad at me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like I said, I'm just sorry I made her so uncomfortable. I'm a pretty social dude by nature, but respect that some aren't. I'll do the same thing next time, and hopefully won't come off quite as scary.

If I understand what you are saying, you support a unified policy where all caches are restricted to a certain distance from the trail? I think the OP was saying that they try to allow different caches to be placed further depending on the particular concerns for a particular area. Perhaps making the policy more unified may help to ensure that cachers know they are to stay close to the trail in all areas of the park. It is a shame that it would come to that, which I think was the whole point of the OP's rant. He seems to desire to allow geocaching to be more free in the park. If people would obey the signage that was put up, then this would be possible. But, I have to agree that the more unified the policy is, the more likely people are to follow it. If it means more restrictions, I guess it becomes a necessary evil. If the choice is strict policy VS. no caches, then yes, I'm supportive of the unified policy. There are plenty of ways that the problem could be addressed, this being one of them. It's not my first choice, not at all. I would be supportive of whatever policy the park adopted in order to keep the area open for caches. I too wish it didn't have to come to this anywhere, it certainly hasn't here. That being said, I think the best solution to this problem is more education on some level or another. Stomping your feet about having to put up signs is the opposite of education, and calling people names who don't think like you do not only serves not purpose, but is counter-productive. Guess who's not going to visit these parks...

What you don't realize is that frankly his opinion is the only one that really matter in that particular park. He (and the rest of the staff) is the one that decides whether or not to ban caching in that park. That goes for all land managers. We get to do what we do because land managers allow it. Why do you think the guidelines prohibit things such as digging, defacing property, or knives? A lot of cachers would love to incorporate these things into their caches. However, it is land owners' concerns that drive these. If the land managers feel that geocaching will have a negative impact on their jurisdiction, then they are not going to allow it. Oh, but I do realize it. That's why I questioned why some caches are allowed 10M off the path, yet he complains that people are leaving the path to find caches when they don't need to. I have zero problems with parks having guidelines about geocaching. If it allows for more places to accept caches in their parks, that's even better. They lead for no confussion, no ambiguity, and there's no question about whether a cache is allowed or not. Signs should be posted in areas where they want people to stay strictly on the trails, and those signs need to be obeyed. I'm not even going to address the removal of signs, there's no reason or argument for that. I'm also aware that not everyone is as conscious in attempting the whole "leave no trace" thing as I am. Education (as the OP pointed out, has had no effect on me) is the key here. Showinng and telling people where the sensitive areas are would help out a great deal here. Just spouting off about the ignorance of other people and complaining that he may now have to put up signs not only sounds like nothing but whining, but also does nothing to correct the problem.

It is attitudes like this that lead to geocaching being banned in parks. You realize that there is a huge difference between wandering around in the woods with no particular goal in mind and creating a path to a specific point, right? What I am seeing in the OP's post is that they have taken steps to specifically deter the paths and not only have people ignored it, but have actually removed the signs put up. I am pretty confident that the only reason geocaching continues to be allowed in this particular park is because the OP is a geocacher. I imagine that had the same occurred and the park official was not a cacher that they would have put a ban on caching in their park. I would suggest that the OP work to develop a specific geocaching policy as many other parks have done. Spell out precisely where geocachers are allowed and require permits in order to place caches. Furthermore, require the permit to be renewed annually upon inspection of the site to determine whether or not the placement is causing undo harm to the surrounding area. Sound a bit restrictive? It is. And it is attitudes such as the one quoted that causes it to come to this or cause caching to be banned altogether. Alright, so I'll retract the whole animal VS. human statement. Take it back. Didn't mean it. Cancel it. Didn't come across right, shouldn't have said it. Any other way to bring that one back? As far as my bolding above goes, what needs to happen, and what I and my friends that I cache with attempt to do, is to not leave a trail when we're off the trail. And guess what? It can be done! We just have to pay attention to our surroundings to the best of our abilities and do the best we can to not disturb anything. It'll never be 100%, it doesn't matter how much attention you pay, but it can be almost that much. I guess that's where I was going with the whole animal thing, but that sure didn't work. Nevermind the inconsistancies and contraindications that I've pointed out, as well as the suggestions I've made to help the OP with what clearly is a problem. My attitude isn't going to ruin geocaching, this guy's park, or your birthday. The only difference between what we are saying is my saying it's okay to leave a path if you do it carefully and not in a fragile/sensitive area. Signs should not be ignored or removed, but they should also be adaquately placed.

Actually, yes lets. You're telling me that you get more human visitors going off trail during the year than you have wildlife in your park? That's either a tiny park or it's in downtown New York. The non-urban park's I'm familiar with are chalk full of numerous kinds of wildlife.

Wow, its that kind of attitude that really blows me away...clearly education is not helping in this case. Lift up your foot and compare your nice hard soled heavy hiking boots to any paw of a Bear, Mountain Lion, Bobcat, Badger ect. See any difference? (insert sarcasim here Just a slight one.) Also compare the number of human visitors to the number of wild animals in the area. Any difference there? Responding at all to that post may not have been productive but this kind of attitude is what causes the issues...sadly education can't reach everyone. Really baffling. So if I go barefoot it's okay? No, I'm sure you'll find another reason to tell me I should stay on the 2 foot wide path, and have zero business going anywhere else ever. (I can use the bold button as well) What you fail to realize is that while I'm sure I don't have all the knowledge you do about the sensitive areas locally (no sarcasm there, I'm a little more polite than that) I do pay as much attention as I can to my surroundings and take care to do little or no damage. Believe it or not, this is possible. Granted, I would be further able to avoid these more sensitive areas if I had a bit more education and information about what they were, but that leads back to my sign suggestion. My opinion of what's okay VS. yours doesn't make either one of us more right, but calling someone with different ideas ignorant makes you just that. I do not condone the destruction of our parks, trails, or environment in general. We do need to try to preserve and protect those areas that are fragile, sensitive, homes to endangered species; the list goes on. I still maintain that if these areas are your concern, as well they should be, you can't expect people to just know that. Post an informative sign. Do something more than complain on a message board that sees a very small percentage of a small part of the population that is offending your park's rules. And get off your high horse for a minute and realize that a difference of opinion (slightly if you pay attention) doesn't mean ignorance.

I've read this entire thread, and I don't see one "ignorant" response. Your priorities lie in different places that other people's, and that's okay. It's actually a good thing. The whole "we bushwhack all the time" mentallity is okay too, as long as they're not disobeying posted signs. That's the biggest issue here, in my eyes at least. If your agency want's people to stay on the path, it has to be well marked in more than one place (like only at the main park entrance or in a trail map that some people may or may not pick up.) If the park wants people to stay strictly on the trails, than don't approve any caches that are off the trail, and make it very clear that the trails are the only place that we should be walking. Maybe placing signs near the sensitive areas that describe what they are and why they are sensitive would help a bit, as well as being educational. This next point I can't take credit for, but I wholeheartedly agree with it. Bears don't stay on the path, neither do mountain lions, bobcats, badgers, wolves, mice, woodpeckers, ants, termites, squirrels, or any other species of animal. We should be able to wander if we so desire, as long as we obey posted signs and try to take as much care as possible.

There are places in parks referred to as Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. Most land managers do not want people tromping through those places and destroying sensitive habitat. Since we don't walk out in the field with field reports of these areas, the land managers can request we stay on the trails. Promoting bushwhacking past signage and a blocked trail will get geocaching banned on those properties. That's not what we want. Rule of thumb: If you pass a sign that says "STAY ON MARKED TRAILS", then you have two choices. Stay on the trail, or leave the property. Unless a bear is chasing you. Yes, however if you read the OP, it sounds as if the trail wasn't marked until the employee decided that he needed to post signs. If the park wanted people to stay on the trail that badly, it should have been posted already.

Thinking a little more about it, I'm not necessarily friendly looking to ladies in their late 40's to early 50's who are by themselves or with kids as I drive up to them in my car and start talking to them. That may have been a factor...

I'm going with overkill. Here's my issue(s) with this whole thing. First off, 5 miles is a pretty big area. My entire town isn't 5 miles from one end to another. Does that mean that if there's a rough neighborhood at one end that the entire place isn't safe? Second. Any urban area has potential to be a dangerous area. When I say this, I am strictly referring to violence, vehicle accidents, and the like. Some are more prone than others (see team cotati's nice little list above) and those are the areas that you can choose to stay away from. I agree Rambler, placing hides in dangerous areas is an interesting street to roll down. Fewer visits due to the danger factor, but well within their rights if they, and those hunting, choose to take the risk.

There are a couple of hides in this area where the non-caching locals are more than familiar with what and where they are. I can't help but wonder what's going through their minds every couple days when somebody is wandering around like an idiot looking for an altoids tin... As far as the OP goes, many congrats. It's a fun hobby, and while not all hides are in cool places like swinging bridges, there are enough out there to keep you entertained for..... well, forever really.

Yesterday as I was running errands, I happened to see 3 people (a lady and two teens/pre-teens) wandering around an area that has a cache with a GPS in their hands and looking around like they were trying to find something. I pulled into the parking lot, rolled down the window and threw out the "Hey, have you found it yet?" The kids smiled and seemed very friendly, however I think I either embarassed or scared the older (?) lady, as she sat down on the bench facing away from me and mumbled something about not yet. She was looking at her piece of paper though, so I thought that maybe she was just concentrating. I started to mention that I hadn't found this one yet either, and she remained silent and facing away from me. I took the hint. I drove off. I'm not offended, I'm not angry. The only thing that bothers me about the whole thing is that I made her uncomfortable. I guess this is my apology to the lady that I bothered yesterday.

Why the edit man? I didn't see anything wrong with the original...

I can't believe I'm responding to this post.... My initial reaction was similar to the majority here; not cool. Not quite an invasion of privacy, but close. Then as I was reading through the responses, a great point was touched on that I absolutely agree with. If you don't want your love letters being read, don't just huck them in the garbage. Privacy goes out the window when you put private things out for the public. Yes, that is exactly what you're doing by just trashing them. Shred them, burn them, do something other than putting them up for grabs in the garbage (that second a should be pronounced ahhh in this instance.) I still think this isn't the greatest way to do this themed cache, but am downgrading my reaction from "Horrible Idea" to "Meh...."

I acknowledge that you acknowledge that this is just a rant. That being said, this is not only a pointless rant, but it sounds whiny and you contradict yourself. Please stay on the path. Unless it's one of the caches where you can't get there on the path, then it's okay, but only 10M in? If you leave the trail, you could get charged with trespassing. Unless it's one of the caches that isn't accessable from the trail? You had to put up the signs that ask people to remain on the trail? The park hasn't made it clear that they want people not to leave the trail? I agree, we should be trying to do as little damage to the environment as possible. What you need to realize is that some people will ignore signs, wood chips, and whatever else you do to try to dissuade them from going in a certain direction if they are on a mission. Not everyone reads the cache page, so while it's a good idea to put special instructions there, and for some it will keep them where you want them to be, for others it's not information they'll have prior to the hunt. *Sigh I just read this and although it sounds mean, I really mean what I'm saying so please don't take offense to what I've said.