Nps Banned Caching Right?.....

[+icefall5]

I think I have read several threads and in the rules that the NPS has banned caching in National Parks and forests, etc. If so, how did this get here? It is a cache in Yellowstone.

 

CLICK HERE!!!!!

Edited March 14, 2006 by icefall5

[+icefall5]

2 minute bump.....

[+Stephanie2427]

It looks like the cache is actually the Yellowstone visitor log book. So it would be kind of like a virtual but there is an actual log to sign. Its just not the cache owners log.

[+StarBrand]

Sounds like an existing "summit" register - not necessarily a geocache. That is why.

 

BTW - caches are NOT banned in national forest lands - in fact many of these areas are quite friendly to Geocaching.

[+MountainMudbug]

It would appear that this 'cache' was originally listed as a virtual around the time that the new-virtual elimination began. The now 'cache' is simply a logbook that was already in place at the location inside Yellowstone, near a geyser, presumably placed by the NPS. So the approver decided to let the cache owner use that existing logbook so he could keep the cache alive.

Seems like a nifty way to have an actual non-virtual with something for cachers to find and sign, which shouldn't bother the NPS since they placed/allowed that logbook (my assumption, of course I could be wrong, not having been there).

I don't see anything wrong with having cachers sign that with their cache name.

[+Jennifer&Dean]

Looks cool to me! Some nice logs on that page. Gonna have to visit that one on our next trip to Yellowstone.

Can't see what the NPS could complain about, if they placed the logbook there and signing it is a requirement for this cache, the only way they could make it go away would be to remove the logbook and nullify the cache as it is currently set up. Which means that they would lose their ability to see how many people use that trail and area on a given day. If they haven't complained yet, why worry?

-Jen

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I think I have read several threads and in the rules that the NPS has banned caching in National Parks and forests, etc. If so, how did this get here? It is a cache in Yellowstone. . .

 

There are some misassumptions in your letter. It is true that physical caches are largely banned in most national parks, although there are some exceptions. In fact, I have found several physical caches (small and regular sized containers) inside the boundaries of national parks. However, your statement that caches are banned in national forests is incorrect. I have found many caches in national forests, including several located very near the cache which you have cited, and I have placed a well-watchlisted cache in a national forest in that same area.

 

Next, it appears that the cache you have cited does not sport a physical container, but merely uses a pre-exisiting logbook. However, I will leave it to othr posters who know more about the situation to address this matter more directly.

[+tozainamboku]

Seems like some people have nothing better to do than to look for existing caches that appear to violate some of the placement guidelines and post about it here in the forums. If you come accross something that looks like it violates the guidelines, why not try contacting the cache owner to see if there is a reasonable explanation. If you're still not satisfied contact the local reviewer or perhaps log an SBA. Just remember that

Nobody Likes the Cache Cops!

[+GClouse]

It is my understanding that caches are banned in wildlife refuge areas, simply because US Fish&Wildlife service feels that the activity of caching would disturbe the animals, or that it might be used as a cover by poachers. State operated wildlife refuge areas may vary from state to state.

[+TotemLake]

Seems like some people have nothing better to do than to look for existing caches that appear to violate some of the placement guidelines and post about it here in the forums. If you come accross something that looks like it violates the guidelines, why not try contacting the cache owner to see if there is a reasonable explanation. If you're still not satisfied contact the local reviewer or perhaps log an SBA. Just remember that

Nobody Likes the Cache Cops!

 

I noticed this trend of tattling as well. It seems the posters aren't completely reading the guidelines as posted here:

 

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is.

(emphasis mine) Edited March 14, 2006 by TotemLake

[+rjb43nh]

However, your statement that caches are banned in national forests is incorrect.

That statement is also not totally correct. In the White Mountain National Forest in NH, for instance, caches are banned in all federally designated Wilderness areas. Cache placement may also be denied in any other area that will adversely affect the WMNF environment. I have been used as a liaison between the WMNF and Groundspeak to try to make sure that proposed caches meet both the geocaching guidelines and don't conflict with the WMNF objectives. If you have a good working relationship with the forest supervisior and obtain permission, there will be no problems or questions.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

Than you very much for brining this cache to my attention. I will be "watching" it very closely and will personally visit it at my earliest convience to assertain its condition.

[+Big Sky Explorers]

That is a cool cache, I will have to do it the next time I go to Yellowstone. It's a quick day trip for me!!!

[+icefall5]

Oh I see. I just saw it on GE and posted it here right away without even looking at the page!

[+Team Cotati]

Seems like some people have nothing better to do than to look for existing caches that appear to violate some of the placement guidelines and post about it here in the forums. If you come accross something that looks like it violates the guidelines, why not try contacting the cache owner to see if there is a reasonable explanation. If you're still not satisfied contact the local reviewer or perhaps log an SBA. Just remember that

Nobody Likes the Cache Cops!

 

Cops and busybodies are two entirely different things. One of them has a reason to exist.

[+wildearth2001]

NPS banned all physical caches on land administered by them, which does not necessarily mean all National Parks. Some National Parks and Monuments are still administered by BLM who allows caches. National Forests however are administered by the USDA Forest Service who generally are very friendly toward caches. THere are exceptions both ways, such as wilderness areas in National Forests are off limits and individual BLM administered parks and some National Forests have their own policys. In addition I have hear of some caches being allowed to be placed on NPS land with special permission from both the park service and Groundspeak.

[+clatmandu]

What's interesting is that the NPS does not allow caches in National Parks because they consider them to be abandoned and thus 'trash', yet this logbook is not? Is it not left out there till it is filled up?

[+TotemLake]

Maybe it was "Grandfathered" when the new rules went in place eh?

[+briansnat]

Just remember that

Nobody Likes the Cache Cops!

 

So you say. As an avid geocacher I'm concerned about the future of our sport. Caches that violate certain guidelines are detrimental to this sport. We tell land managers and park officials and anyone else who will listen that our sport is self policing and that caches that are inappropriately placed will be removed from this website.

 

As such, we rely on each other to identify these caches and notify Groundspeak. WE ARE THE CACHE POLICE. If we don't accept that responsiblilty and police our sport, the government will.

[+Renegade Knight]

The cache is fine. The reviewer did a great job following the spirit and intent of the guidelines.

 

As a general rule you should find the cache before you question it. If you do find it then you should contact the owner first.

[+TotemLake]

Just remember that

Nobody Likes the Cache Cops!

 

So you say. As an avid geocacher I'm concerned about the future of our sport. Caches that violate certain guidelines are detrimental to this sport. We tell land managers and park officials and anyone else who will listen that our sport is self policing and that caches that are inappropriately placed will be removed from this website.

 

As such, we rely on each other to identify these caches and notify Groundspeak. WE ARE THE CACHE POLICE. If we don't accept that responsiblilty and police our sport, the government will.

 

Yes but it would be nice if folks checked the date of the cache placement and maybe read the cache page to find out more before making it a public issue. Otherwise it's just banging a pan just to make noise. As the OP stated:

 

icefall5 Posted Today, 05:40 PM

Oh I see. I just saw it on GE and posted it here right away without even looking at the page!

[+briansnat]

Just remember that

Nobody Likes the Cache Cops!

 

So you say. As an avid geocacher I'm concerned about the future of our sport. Caches that violate certain guidelines are detrimental to this sport. We tell land managers and park officials and anyone else who will listen that our sport is self policing and that caches that are inappropriately placed will be removed from this website.

 

As such, we rely on each other to identify these caches and notify Groundspeak. WE ARE THE CACHE POLICE. If we don't accept that responsiblilty and police our sport, the government will.

 

Yes but it would be nice if folks checked the date of the cache placement and maybe read the cache page to find out more before making it a public issue. Otherwise it's just banging a pan just to make noise. As the OP stated:

 

icefall5 Posted Today, 05:40 PM

Oh I see. I just saw it on GE and posted it here right away without even looking at the page!

 

And so? Someone posted with his concern and the community determined that it was unfounded. I'd rather that people do that than ignore a potential issue. The system worked well in this case.

[+TotemLake]

And so? Someone posted with his concern and the community determined that it was unfounded. I'd rather that people do that than ignore a potential issue. The system worked well in this case.

My point being if people continue to bang the pan long enough, it gets ignored. If the folks do their due diligence and see if it is a possible grandfathered cache or not, that can eliminate alot of the noise and the true problems can be handled. This too is a perfect example where the OP did not do due diligence and made unnecessary noise. That's as much an abuse of the system as it is a use of it.

 

I'll add the fact that at least two of us noted a trend. If it doesn't get said now, then it will get out of hand.

Edited March 15, 2006 by TotemLake

[+Snoogans]

OKAY, OKAY....The OP is like 12, or something. Give 'em a break.... sheesh...

[+TotemLake]

OKAY, OKAY....The OP is like 12, or something. Give 'em a break.... sheesh...

 

That truly isn't the point. I'm making a case about a trend. I knew and understood the OP was young which is why I didn't pipe up when the thread first started.

 

That being said, this community sometimes has a tendency to take a back seat to teaching newbies how to go about this the right way because of use_your_favorite_reason, then the problem becomes status quo. You know me and how I debate. I'm about user education and will use current examples to drive my point. I'm not picking on the kid.

Edited March 15, 2006 by TotemLake

[+Moose Mob]

If folks have questions why a cache was published that appears against the guidelines, they can ask. The question was valid, and answered. Let it alone.

 

OP can PM or e-mail me if he has any questions.

Side topics can start thier threads if they are so inclined.

 

Thread closed.