Geocaches In National And State Parks

[klenger]

I'm new to this and have been looking for caches in the national and state parks that we visit, but so far have not seen any listed. Is it consider inappropriate to leave caches in these parks? I live about 4 miles from Saguaro NP and there are lots of nice hiking trails and lots of land with nothing by cacti and rattle snakes. Seems like this would be a neat place to stash a cache.

[+Cache Viking]

National Parks are off limits per the NPS and I believe State Parks vary from State to State.

[+Moose Mob]

As mentioned, NPS are off limits, and State Parks depend on the State. Even withion the State, different Parks have different policies based on the purpose. Recreational use and hiking trails are typicaly allowed, while conservation areas may or may not allow it.

 

One of your locals, Shadow Ace, was telling me about the Saguro cache incident while we were caching today. Seems to many folks violated the guidelines and thier rangers pulled tha caches and left notes on the cache logs telling the owners thay could pick them up at the ranger station.

 

Only improvements to

[+Artemis]

According to the Saguaro National Park Rangers and the note that was placed on every cache which used to be in the parks back in the late 2001 early 2002 timeframe:

 

The  Cache has been removed under 36 CFR 2.22(a)(2) Leaving property unattended for longer than 24 hours, except in locations where longer time periods have been designated or in accordance with conditions established by the superintendent. The cache has been impounded under 36 CFR 2.22(b)Impoundment of Property. Per the regulations set forth in 36 CFR 2.22(b)the cache will be stored at Saguaro National Park for a period of 60 days during which the owner can claim the cache by contacting Saguaro National Park, west.

 

Thank you,

Ranger Jackson

 

According to the guidelines for placing a geocache found here:

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

* Caches on land maintained by the U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges)

 

Saguaro National Park is managed by the National Park service, the website can be found here:

http://www.nps.gov/sagu/

[+FletchWL]

I'm not sure how up-to-date the info is, but here's a site I ran across the other day:

 

http://www.geocachingpolicy.com/

 

Fletch

[+Team Cotati]

Here's the simple rule: "If it is related in any way to the activity of geocaching and it gives you pleasure.....do it."

[+Renegade Knight]

Is it appropriate?

 

Your wording on the question is good. No you cant cache in NPS parks, as well as some state parks. However is it approprate?

 

Yes. A park is nothing more than an area of land developed for a specific land use. In the case of a park it's for the enjoyment of the people (as opposed to a base in Cuba that is not there for the enjoyment of the people).

 

You can you play frisbee, camp, take a shower, hike in the back country, fish, tour, take photo's ride horses etc. In other words you go to a park to recreate. Geocaching falls 100% within the purpose of a park and is entirly appropriate.

[+Team Cotati]

Is it appropriate?

 

Your wording on the question is good. No you cant cache in NPS parks, as well as some state parks. However is it approprate?

 

Yes. A park is nothing more than an area of land developed for a specific land use. In the case of a park it's for the enjoyment of the people (as opposed to a base in Cuba that is not there for the enjoyment of the people).

 

You can you play frisbee, camp, take a shower, hike in the back country, fish, tour, take photo's ride horses etc. In other words you go to a park to recreate. Geocaching falls 100% within the purpose of a park and is entirly appropriate.

Virtually everything that I have read on this topic seems to revolve around the issue of causing damage or harm to natural, cultural, or archeological resources of the lands under the parks dominion of control. I wonder why activities like geocaching, orienteering, bungee jumping, rock climbing, and riding bicycles off paved or designated pathways are viewed differently than frisbee throwing, riding horses, showering and other stuff. It just does not make logical sense to me why the park managers and administrators have this bias against such activities. I mean, it just seems un-natural.

Edited December 24, 2005 by Team Cotati

[+JimmyEv]

Some agencies, such as EPA, aren't permitted to ban anything, such as the 30,000 or so new organic chemicals developed each year, until they have empirical evidence proving that the chemical is detrimental to the environment. Other agencies, like DOI, seem to be able to ban activities based upon anecdotal evidence, or a perception of what might happen. They 'err on the side of caution.' Even after empirical evidence is gathered proving that the activity is not detrimental to the environment, as in the case of mountain biking, the activity remains banned because it is much harder for the Interior Dept. to lift a ban than implement one. Unless lobbyists are involved. Then its a whole different ballgame...

[Stearmandriver]

Is it appropriate?

 

Your wording on the question is good. No you cant cache in NPS parks, as well as some state parks. However is it approprate?

 

Yes. A park is nothing more than an area of land developed for a specific land use. In the case of a park it's for the enjoyment of the people (as opposed to a base in Cuba that is not there for the enjoyment of the people).

 

You can you play frisbee, camp, take a shower, hike in the back country, fish, tour, take photo's ride horses etc. In other words you go to a park to recreate. Geocaching falls 100% within the purpose of a park and is entirly appropriate.

I'm not so sure about this. The purpose of setting aside land as a national park is to preserve that land, in its natural state, for the appreciation of current and future generations. You're probably familiar with the "leave no trace" philosophy that backpackers and other responsible backcountry users adhere to. Obviously, intentionally leaving behind non-biodegradable, man-made stuff in the woods does not adhere to this idea of conservation and preservation. A forest is no longer in its "natural state" if you start stashing metal and plastic containers in every convenient hiding place, right?

 

Obviously, we're talking a matter of degrees here. I know as well as you that a little tupperware container doesn't cause much significant harm if you take care to place it responsibly. I know you feel you have the right to enjoy your hobby on public land, but doesn't the backpacker / wilderness traveler have the same right to enjoy his hobby (which is basically exploring wild areas without running across plastic / metal crap in the wilderness)? If we say, "well, sure geocaching encroaches on his hobby a little, but not much right?", then what's to stop the off-road vehicle crowd from arguing they have the right to tear up our last remaining wilderness areas and NP's? If you allow some intrusive use, where do you draw the line? You really can't.

 

So, the best and fairest policy is to keep these areas as natural as possible. That means man-made facilities at access points and trailheads, and leaving the backcountry the hell alone.

 

State and local parks are a different story, of course...

[+Jester2112]

Virtually everything that I have read on this topic seems to revolve around the issue of causing damage or harm to natural, cultural, or archeological resources of the lands under the parks dominion of control. I wonder why activities like geocaching, orienteering, bungee jumping, rock climbing, and riding bicycles off paved or designated pathways are viewed differently than frisbee throwing, riding horses, showering and other stuff. It just does not make logical sense to me why the park managers and administrators have this bias against such activities. I mean, it just seems un-natural.

I'd have to agree, except for an area very near to me. Saint Andrews State Park is located in my home town of Panama City Beach, FL. Any cache placed there that I've ever heard of is removed within a matter of weeks by the rangers. The last one (sorry no link but I never got to find it so I'm unable to locate it right now) lasted 8 days. On the 9th day, seekers began logging that they found a 4X4 post apprx. 1 foot tall standing in the cache location with a sign from the ranger stating something along the lines of "THE CACHE HAS BEEN REMOVED, PLEASE STOP LOOKING, BUT FEEL FREE TO ENJOY THE REST THAT THE PARK HAS TO OFFER."

 

This part of Florida is protected from such nasty things as hurricanes by a line of barrier islands. Anybody from FL, or who has spent much time here, knows to "stay off the dunes" which refers to not walking/climbing on the sand dunes as it can cause damage to the sea oats which help build, and hold together, the very sand dunes that protect us somewhat from the storm surge generated by these storms. Also, any geocacher worth his/her salt knows that caches are forbidden from being burried. Unfortunately, from some of the posts read on the cache referenced above, in just 8 short days, the seekers managed to make the area for several yards around appear to be a scene from the Disney movie "Holes". This has also been the apparent reason for the demise of the other caches hidden in the park before my caching days began. It's very sad to me as this park if full of spots that I would love to introduce my fellow cachers to but in this case I can fully understand what has left the proverbial bad taste in the ranger's mouths about our activity. I do plan, once I've got a bit more experience under my belt, and along with the wonderful folks at Florida Geocaching Association, to one day work up the nerve to approach TPTB and hopefully change their view on us cachers by working out an approval process including offering to maintain the approved caches myself it that's what it takes.

 

What our rangers are trying to protect:

 

[+briansnat]

'm not so sure about this. The purpose of setting aside land as a national park is to preserve that land, in its natural state, for the appreciation of current and future generations.

 

Actually the purpose is twofold. To protect the land AND to provide recreational opportunities for the citizens.

 

 

I'd have to agree, except for an area very near to me. Saint Andrews State Park is located in my home town of Panama City Beach, FL. Any cache placed there that I've ever heard of is removed within a matter of weeks by the rangers. The last one (sorry no link but I never got to find it so I'm unable to locate it right now) lasted 8 days. On the 9th day, seekers began logging that they found a 4X4 post apprx. 1 foot tall standing in the cache location with a sign from the ranger stating something along the lines of "THE CACHE HAS BEEN REMOVED, PLEASE STOP LOOKING, BUT FEEL FREE TO ENJOY THE REST THAT THE PARK HAS TO OFFER."

 

Are the GC.COM reviewers aware of this ban? If not, someone should make them aware.

[+Team Cotati]

Virtually everything that I have read on this topic seems to revolve around the issue of causing damage or harm to natural, cultural, or archeological resources of the lands under the parks dominion of control. I wonder why activities like geocaching, orienteering, bungee jumping, rock climbing, and riding bicycles off paved or designated pathways are viewed differently than frisbee throwing, riding horses, showering and other stuff. It just does not make logical sense to me why the park managers and administrators have this bias against such activities. I mean, it just seems un-natural.

I'd have to agree, except for an area very near to me. Saint Andrews State Park is located in my home town of Panama City Beach, FL. Any cache placed there that I've ever heard of is removed within a matter of weeks by the rangers. The last one (sorry no link but I never got to find it so I'm unable to locate it right now) lasted 8 days. On the 9th day, seekers began logging that they found a 4X4 post apprx. 1 foot tall standing in the cache location with a sign from the ranger stating something along the lines of "THE CACHE HAS BEEN REMOVED, PLEASE STOP LOOKING, BUT FEEL FREE TO ENJOY THE REST THAT THE PARK HAS TO OFFER."

 

This part of Florida is protected from such nasty things as hurricanes by a line of barrier islands. Anybody from FL, or who has spent much time here, knows to "stay off the dunes" which refers to not walking/climbing on the sand dunes as it can cause damage to the sea oats which help build, and hold together, the very sand dunes that protect us somewhat from the storm surge generated by these storms. Also, any geocacher worth his/her salt knows that caches are forbidden from being burried. Unfortunately, from some of the posts read on the cache referenced above, in just 8 short days, the seekers managed to make the area for several yards around appear to be a scene from the Disney movie "Holes". This has also been the apparent reason for the demise of the other caches hidden in the park before my caching days began. It's very sad to me as this park if full of spots that I would love to introduce my fellow cachers to but in this case I can fully understand what has left the proverbial bad taste in the ranger's mouths about our activity. I do plan, once I've got a bit more experience under my belt, and along with the wonderful folks at Florida Geocaching Association, to one day work up the nerve to approach TPTB and hopefully change their view on us cachers by working out an approval process including offering to maintain the approved caches myself it that's what it takes.

 

What our rangers are trying to protect:

 

Do they allow frisbee tossing in those dunes?

[+ironman114]

[

Do they allow frisbee tossing in those dunes?

 

Probably not if they dig holes while tossing them.

 

 

This part of Florida is protected from such nasty things as hurricanes by a line of barrier islands. Anybody from FL, or who has spent much time here, knows to "stay off the dunes" which refers to not walking/climbing on the sand dunes as it can cause damage to the sea oats which help build, and hold together, the very sand dunes that protect us somewhat from the storm surge generated by these storms.

 

This would seem to cover that activity also.

[+Team Cotati]

[

Do they allow frisbee tossing in those dunes?

 

Probably not if they dig holes while tossing them.

 

 

This part of Florida is protected from such nasty things as hurricanes by a line of barrier islands. Anybody from FL, or who has spent much time here, knows to "stay off the dunes" which refers to not walking/climbing on the sand dunes as it can cause damage to the sea oats which help build, and hold together, the very sand dunes that protect us somewhat from the storm surge generated by these storms.

 

This would seem to cover that activity also.

Sounds like prime cache hiding territory. No 'holes' required.

[+Kai Team]

Excellent post Jester2112!

 

Unfortunately, from some of the posts read on the cache referenced above, in just 8 short days, the seekers managed to make the area for several yards around appear to be a scene from the Disney movie "Holes".  This has also been the apparent reason for the demise of the other caches hidden in the park before my caching days began. 

 

Perhaps the Rangers should also post a copy of this. Sounds like some cachers in your area could benefit from reading it.

 

I do plan, once I've got a bit more experience under my belt, and along with the wonderful folks at Florida Geocaching Association, to one day work up the nerve to approach TPTB and hopefully change their view on us cachers by working out an approval process including offering to maintain the approved caches myself it that's what it takes.

 

I'd encourage you to approach the park authorities as soon as you feel reasonably knowledgeable about Geocaching. I've worked with several land managers (state, county, local) in my area to promote geocaching. Even under difficult circumstances (someone's cache in park blown up by bomb squad, bomb squad not happy ), they've always responded professionally to my invitation to sit down and talk.

 

Once they hear about geocaching (e.g. a family activity), and that I want to help them protect the land, they have always worked with me to figure out a way to do both. In one case it lead to the reasonable implementation of a controversial policy that had just been announced (the Park Supervisor and I walked the trails and he started pointing out appropriate places for caches!) and in another it avoided the implementation of a ban (and left the land in 30 parks open to unrestricted caching).

 

I have no special talent in this regard except for the ability to engage people in constructive conversation (although you might not know that from these forums ). I think you'll find that they will welcome your input and assistance!

 

Edit: really bad sentence structure...

Edited December 24, 2005 by Kai Team

[+Renegade Knight]

....I'm not so sure about this. The purpose of setting aside land as a national park is to preserve that land, in its natural state, for the appreciation of current and future generations. You're probably familiar with the "leave no trace" philosophy that backpackers and other responsible backcountry users adhere to. Obviously, intentionally leaving behind non-biodegradable, man-made stuff in the woods does not adhere to this idea of conservation and preservation. A forest is no longer in its "natural state" if you start stashing metal and plastic containers in every convenient hiding place, right?...

You went a lot of different directions on that post.

 

Parks, Wilderness, National Forest, Wildlife Refuge are all land use designations. I'll use a park first since the National Park Service was what I was talking about.

 

A park is built to attracte people to recreate. Simple as that. If they wanted hte land in the natural state they would not make it a park. The irony of a park is that they work and attract people. They improve them, build parking, the people come, park hike, treck explore and all of the sudden they have to adapt to the impact that so many humans have. Then parks get rules. "Stay on the trail." and they pave a trail for us to stay on. However the parks purpose never stopped being recreation and within that framework, and within the preservation they are trying to accomplish they can allow caches. It is appropriate.

 

In Idaho we have more wilderness than any other state in the lower 48. In that wilderness we have air strips, improvments cabins and the like. Wilderness is a land use. We have wildlife refuges that invite hunting at times, and hikers, boaters and so on. The forest has campgrounds, logging trails, trap lines etc. The reason is that Wilderness and Refuges also allow recrational use, Forests and BLM lands Recreational and Economic use. Geocaching can fit within that framework as well.

 

Nobody invites recreational users to tear up the land. That's an assertion you have made. People do it anyway which is why we have less ability to use our own lands than we should. The best and fairest use is to balance all the uses that fit with the land use designated for those lands.

[dsandbro]

The purpose a National Park is defined here:

 

 

http://www.nps.gov/legacy/organic-act.htm

[+Renegade Knight]

The purpose a National Park is defined here:

 

http://www.nps.gov/legacy/organic-act.htm

 

Thanks for the link.

The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purposes of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

 

They provide for the public use of the land along with the protection. The key part is that they do provide for the use and development so that people can enjoy the Parks, Monuments, and Reservations. This is not incompatible with geocaching, and geocaching would be an appropriate use of NPS lands. The NPS banned geocaching. If the NPS chose to ban all activites on their lands their purpose would not be met, it would be in violation of the law and the public outcry would either force a change or result in the NPS being disbanded. Geocaching is only one valid use that was banned. They are working on banning other uses, and environmental groups are working on forcing a ban of yet more uses. Time will tell where it all ends up. Land use planning and balancing all the competing land uses and the demands is no easy thing.

Edited December 26, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+OmniCitadel]

Edit: Removed because im an idiot!!!

Edited December 26, 2005 by OmniCitadel

[Stearmandriver]

The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purposes of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

 

They provide for the public use of the land along with the protection. The key part is that they do provide for the use and development so that people can enjoy the Parks, Monuments, and Reservations. This is not incompatible with geocaching, and geocaching would be an appropriate use of NPS lands. The NPS banned geocaching. If the NPS chose to ban all activites on their lands their purpose would not be met, it would be in violation of the law and the public outcry would either force a change or result in the NPS being disbanded. Geocaching is only one valid use that was banned. They are working on banning other uses, and environmental groups are working on forcing a ban of yet more uses. Time will tell where it all ends up. Land use planning and balancing all the competing land uses and the demands is no easy thing.

This is a good example of how any issue has different angles. When I read the definition, I focus on the same sentence you bolded, and interpret that to mean the park is there for the enjoyment and preservation of the natural or historic setting. Obviously, intentionally placing what most people would consider junk in these settings is not preserving them for the enjoyment of others. It certainly isn't preserving them "in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." I don't imagine the family out for a hike would appreciate tripping over an unfortunately placed ammo box while observing the petroglyphs in Grand Canyon, for instance.

 

I'm a huge fan of personal freedoms... until they start impinging on someone else's freedom. In terms of geocaching in NP's, it seems to me that placing caches infringes on others' right to enjoy the park in as natural a state as possible, after the necessary access improvements you mentioned have been made.

 

I was indeed specifically talking about national parks in my previous post. BLM land? Why not, it's gonna get raped for mineral extraction anyway. Forest Circus land? Absolutely, it's only a few decades away from the next clear cut anyway. Wilderness areas? Absolutely not, as it obviously breaks the rules there. And so on...

 

Anyway, that's my take. I mean it respectfully, and certainly mean you no disrespect. I admit I'm a complete newb at your sport, so maybe I'll come around to your way of thinking... but maybe also the forums benefit from the views of someone who isn't as personally attached. Plus, I do know a little bit about federal land management.

[+briansnat]

'm a huge fan of personal freedoms... until they start impinging on someone else's freedom. In terms of geocaching in NP's, it seems to me that placing caches infringes on others' right to enjoy the park in as natural a state as possible, after the necessary access improvements you mentioned have been made.

 

How does concealing a tupperware container infringe on someone's right to enjoy a park? Most geocaches are carefully hidden from the view of passersby and thousands of people walk right by caches every day, none the wiser.

 

Wilderness areas? Absolutely not, as it obviously breaks the rules there

 

Actually, though some some wilderness ban geocaching, others have no problem with geocaches. Considering that the Wilderness Act allows for prospecting, mining, power lines, grazing animals and drilling, and camping and horseback riding are accepted uses, geocaching is rather benign in comparison.

Edited December 26, 2005 by briansnat

[+RichardMoore]

I'd have to agree, except for an area very near to me. Saint Andrews State Park is located in my home town of Panama City Beach, FL. Any cache placed there that I've ever heard of is removed within a matter of weeks by the rangers.

So someone within the park system is giving permission to place a cache and then the rangers are removing it?

[+Pasha]

Very interesting discussion, folks.

 

Here's my church-of-wouldn't-it-be-pretty-to-think-so opinion: it is all just land. There should be no distinction between "sacred" land and other land - that implies the other land is profane. All land should be treated equally in terms of respectful use.

 

OK, now that that's out of the way... We have a local State Park here in Port Orchard, Washington in which caching is definitely frowned upon. The ranger has a reputation for being terribly anti-caching, and several local cachers here have referred to her by terms less than affectionate. There was a cache in the park that had been listed for many months but very rarely found, so a friend and I went down there to find it. On the way in, and curious, I asked the ranger with the reputation straight out, "Is geocaching allowed in this park, and if not, why?" I was expecting a very confrontational encounter from what I'd heard about her. Of course, I couldn't have been more wrong. She said that she didn't allow caches and that she actively tried to get rid of them because of their effect on the park's trail system, underbrush, and littoral areas. She mentioned the existing cache and that it was still listed because she hadn't been able to find it. Her sole concern was that not only did caching have a measurable effect on the environment there for the enjoyment of all, but that in trying to have discussions with cache hiders and seekers in the past, the people she'd talked to were militantly assertive of their rights to do this activity in the park and left absolutely no room for discussion. A combative relationship was established that she felt left her no choice but to ban it outright - she reads gc.com because she's interested in the activity in other parks, and would see comments left by people after a cache in the park had been archived due to her ban.

 

We discussed it calmly and rationally for a good hour; she was extremely helpful and concerned that a legitimate use (caching) was being cast in a bad light by selfish people. She gave us express permission to look for the existing cache with the understanding that we would post an SBA log regardless, because it's against the park's rules, and with an understanding of what specific activities she did not approve of, namely bushwhacking, digging, harming vegetation, etc. We did so... didn't find the cache anyway (last find was several months before and it was probably vandalized) but we established an important rapport with a ranger who had previously been said to be unapproachable. She has invited us (the caching public) to place virtuals in the park without limit, because she wants to draw people for legitimate uses, and has also agreed to discuss further ways to allow traditional geocaching with reasonable limitations.

 

I guess the point of my long-winded anecdotes is that this whole situation was created, not necessarily because of damage to the park's environment, but because her concern about same was met with abusive posts in gc.com logs and combative conversations in person. She, like probably 99% of rangers, is concerned first and foremost with preserving the park for all uses, and is naturally going to take the path of least resistance if she has to deal with uncivil responses. Be nice, and it's amazing the progress that can be made.

[+Alan2]

Why don't you ask her to suggest a couple of spots that she would consider to not have an impact? And then she can monitor for awhile. Since you've developed a rapport, you ought to be the one hiding the first couple. This would also help bring in visitors something she's interested in.

Edited December 26, 2005 by Alan2

[Stearmandriver]

How does concealing a tupperware container infringe on someone's right to enjoy a park? Most geocaches are carefully hidden from the view of passersby and thousands of people walk right by caches every day, none the wiser.

 

Wilderness areas? Absolutely not, as it obviously breaks the rules there

 

Actually, though some some wilderness ban geocaching, others have no problem with geocaches. Considering that the Wilderness Act allows for prospecting, mining, power lines, grazing animals and drilling, and camping and horseback riding are accepted uses, geocaching is rather benign in comparison.

Well, I suppose because the folks hiking in the backcountry of a national park didn't make the walk out there to find a piece of tupperware. I understand they should be concealed, but obviously any activity has some people that are more conscientious than others about following the rules. Also, it's inevitable that caches will be abandoned occasionally, and then this stuff is left out there. Actually, that's the point of the sport, isn't it? That this stuff is left out there?

 

I'm here, of course, because this sport sounds like fun, so I don't mean to take such a negative stance. I just think it's important that our last remaining areas that even approach wilderness (obviously there's no real wilderness left) remain as wild as possible. It's impossible to succeed completely at that, but one easy way seems to be not intentionally leaving tupperware in them.

 

I'm surprised any wilderness areas allow caching; it seems contrary to their charter. The exemptions allowing prospecting, mining, drilling, etc. that you mentioned expired in 1984. Grazing still takes place, and there is an obscure provision in the act allowing for utilization of water resources in wilderness areas, but that's about it. (More exemptions apply in AK, but that's beyond the scope here.)

 

But that's enough land use debate here for me. Like you said, whether caching is allowed or not, its impact is fairly minor compared to so many other things that happen every day, so my own personal feelings on the issue just aren't that important! Plus, I start a four day trip tomorrow, and I suppose this thread will be dead by the time I get home.

 

See y'all...

Joe

 

edit: typo

Edited December 27, 2005 by Stearmandriver