dsandbro

Summarizing the above: National Parks do not allow geocaches. National Forests and National Grasslands generally allow geocaches. Some designated Wilderness Areas do not allow geocaches, some do. Check locally. BLM generally allows geocaches. Organized geocaching group events may require a permit. National Wildlife Refuges generally do not allow them. There may be a few exceptions. State and county Parks, forest, etc. -- check locally. Where allowed, the general rules about placement still apply. On National Forests geocaches are not generally considered abandoned property or litter. There are specific legal definitions and criteria that must be met for these regulations to apply. It is a real stretch for a geocache to fall under either of those categories (personal conversation with a USFS law enforcement officer). As long as a specific cache does not pose a risk to health or is causing resource damage the USFS does not object and considers geocaching a legitimate form of public recreation. BLM appears to be similar.

RE: the above discussion Professional grade GPS receivers do not use EPE. They display and record the various DOP values, Signal/Noise Ratios, and other factors. These are a bit too techno-nerdy for the average home user, so the manufacturers 'boil' all these values down to a single user-friendly value and call it EPE. Unfortunately, as noted above, there is no standard for how the EPE is computed from all the factors that go into it, and most manufacturers treat their method as proprietary. I had one Garmin factory rep tell me the EPE in my particular 76S was 95% confidence interval, but later versions of the same model used a different formula. Since I have upgraded my software since then I really do not know what it represents now as no one at Garmin will 'fess up anymore. At least I couldn't get them to. As a test I periodically use my unit to navigate to an airport survey monument near my home. Sometimes it will show me on the point with a 10' EPE while I am 100 yards away, sometimes it is right on. I do not have much confidence in the displayed value.

It's in the front yard of the house where this old fat dude wears a red suit all the time. His wife is pretty cool, though -- she is always baking cookies. There's a bunch of short dudes in green suits always running around busy making toys and stuff. The reindeer are cool to look at. One of them has a big red shiny nose. I saw a couple of long lists of names inside his house. One list was labeled 'Good' and the other 'Bad'. My name was on the top of the 'Bad' list in big bold letters. I wonder what that is all about?

Just push the 'panic button' on your key fob and follow the sound of the honking horn.

This gentleman, or someone else using the same name, is cross posting this identical rant on other outdoor related websites. Brian is correct. It does not mandate a fee for all federal lands. It allows a fee system to be maintained where the respective agencies determine a fee is warranted. Most national forests will not institute a general access fee or if they do, will apply it only to certain areas. The bill specifically forbids a fee in the enumerated situations. Much ado about nothing.

The techno-geek term for cones needing fire to open is 'serotinous'. There's your daily trivia factoid. The Rocky Mtn variety of Lodgepole Pine is serotinous. The Sierra Nevada variety is not. Different species of tree have varying levels of disease resistance and dealing with injuries. White Fir for example dies if you look at it crosseyed. Junipers can be run over by bulldozers and still thrive. Since it is not practical for everyone to know the difference in silvics and tree pathology between the species (I don't and I am in the business. I grab the reference books all the time) just don't do the nail thing.

Dig it up and find out. It could be millions of dollars in unmarked small bills.

Well, clear-cutting will accomplish much the same thing (albeit with less nitrogen), with the added benefit of harvesting the lumber. Though, I must say, it's a breath-taking shock to come 'round the corner and see twenty or thirty acres of federal forest land mowed down to nubbinses. This is wandering off-topic, but some misinformation is creeping in... Most fires result in a net loss of soil nitrogen. The nitrates are volatized and go up in smoke. That's why the first plant colonizers following a burn are usually legumes or other nitrogen fixers. Phosphorous and potassium are commonly reduced too, although in lesser amounts than nitrogen. It all depends on fire intensity, soil chemistry, and soil moisture. Clear cutting is neither good nor bad. It is highly appropriate and ecologically desirable in certain forest types. Done right in the right place at the right time in the right manner will improve forest biodiversity and make the forest healthier in the long run on the landscape scale. Conversely, individual tree selection harvesting can create an ecological mess in the wrong forest type. Inbetween the two lies a near infinite number of variations and combinations. Harvesting can be tailored to achieve exactly the desired forest structure and composition with almost no risk. The same cannot be said about fires. Forest fires cannot be said to be all good. Like any natural process, there are ecological side effects both desirable and undesirable. There are too many variables to make the blanket claim. It must be determined on a site-by-site specific basis factoring in ALL the environmental factors, not just wildlife habitat (and fire is not always beneficial to wildlife habitat). People are part of the ecosystem and the human values are just as important as the biological. A number of recent studies on the 2000 and 2002 fires in the Rockies are showing the economic and environmental costs are far greater than the benefits. The 2002 Hayman Fire in Colorado had an economic loss to the watershed that exceeded the economic loss to homes and infrastructure. Contrary to popular belief and the disinformation perpetuated by the environmental industry, old growth is NOT necessarily fire resistant. There are different types of old growth, and most are highly fire susceptible. Different forest types and different climates all heavy different fire regimes. Some forest types (and other vegetative communities besides forests) evolved with infrequent high intensity fires, others frequent low intensity, and every combination in-between. In the higher elevation spruce and hemlock forest type. for example, historically had centuries between fires, and when a fire did occur it nuked the forest -- that was the norm. At the other end of the extreme NE California eastside pine forests had a fire rotation of three years, burning only the small accumulation of grass and needles. In either case displayed here, the pattern is natural, but is natural always desirable? Increasingly we are finding allowing natural processes to occur unchecked is not always healthy for the environment. Nature often harms the very values we desire to protect.

There is another explanation that is, ummm, distasteful. They could be removed by some rogue geocachers as a protest of the ban on geocaches in Parks and many wildernesses. From a legal standpoint, there is no difference between a summit register and a geocache (isn't a geocache just a summit register not on a summit?). So from a strict legal interpretation allowing one and not the other is selective enforcement and inconsistent application of the regulations.

Here's an article on some simple field techniques to improve reception. http://www.safnet.org/archive/702_howtogps.cfm Here's a neat trick that is not mentioned in manuals or instruction booklets. http://www.safnet.org/archive/0404_howtotriangulate.cfm

They involve long drives on backcountry roads or are just inconvenient to get to. I will get them eventually. A couple are only 5 miles or so straight line distance but 20-30 miles of back road.

Cremains of someone's dog, with a note to continue carrying the jar to your next cache, sorta like a travel bug. It seems the dog really liked geocaching... I passed on moving it along...

An old folk American remedy is to crush the leaves of the Yarrow plant (white flower, common in the West) and use it as a salve. I tried it once myself and did not notice any difference. So use this old remedy at your own risk.

Does anybody even bother to get a license? The FCC may care if someone is using GMRS in a commercial business in the middle of a big city, but the casual user out in the sticks doesn't seem to draw any attention from the radio cops.

Because the few caches that do exist in France are filled with soap and deodorant??

Gee! I thought it was all due to the democratic convention causing a disturbance to the force or something...

Will the laws change after the election? Remember kerry's running mate is an ambulance chaser who made millions suing everybody.

Have several cover stories. One is: I am from the oil company and I am surveying this area for a toxic waste dump. Another: [flash some 'official' looking ID] Department of Homeland Security. Some suspicious people have been seen in this area carrying GPS devices. I am just checking it out.

For more information on the various domestic terrorist groups like ELF and the sierra club, go to: http://www.activistcash.com

Buy it in the U.S. and just take it home. Technically, you need a licence in the U.S. to use GMRS, but almost nobody bothers to get one.

Backyards can be poor areas. I have the same problem, but a short walk down the street improves significantly. My yard has powerlines along the alley and lots of metal roofs and chain link fences in the neighborhood, so I blame it on those.

Complicating the whole DD, DM, DMS thing is people who really should know better (pilots, surveyors, map and compass instructors) use them interchangeably. Written coordinates handed to me include the following examples: 40-25-27; 121-55.25 39.56.89 x 120.00.36 40 25 36 x 121 54.23 and my favorite 39 42.5 646125 (mixing a latitude with UTM!) Asking for clarification usually just generates frustration. Ask them which datum they used and you get a deer-in-the-headlights look. I usually ask for their GPS and look it up myself.

Best guess is old survey marker. Old surveyors knew that tree blazes and wooden signs disappear, so they devised another way to permanently mark corners. Charcoal does not rot away like wood, so they would build fires on the corner and bury the charcoal just below the surface, then cover the spot with a pile of rocks. Sometimes use rocks only. Later, brass plates inscribed with the information was buried to. And now the brass plates are benchmarks permanently imbedded in concrete or glued into holes drilled into bedrock.

There is a freeware utility called WinCAN developed by the government for use by emergency dispatchers. WinCAN (Windows Computer Aided Navigation) will take coordinates many different systems and convert it to others (including Township, Range and Section). Dispatchers get calls from people reporting emergencies with every conceivable location format and this program is designed for them. I'll see if I can find it and post it here.

Print maps on waterproof paper like national geographic or rite-in-the-rain (R-I-T-R is cheaper). Use waterproof ink cartridges in your printer ($$$). Use any of the map holders mentioned above. There are several different types and brands. Look for one where the map will not slide around inside the case so you can write on the plastic window with a felt tip pen and not mark up the map. Most people just us cheap ziplocks.