Just Venting...

1.5k · June 20, 2006

Many of the caches in our area are hidden along the Appalachian trail. The NPS owns much of the land the trail runs through, and has agreements with other landowners for a trail "corridor" on lands they don't own. Over the years caches have been hidden along the AT, unknowingly on NPS land. This past week the NPS has been cracking down, emailing the cache owners to remove their caches, or even going out to pick up the caches themselves. In the last 3 days alone, we've lost about 15 caches, and the count is climbing.

I know they're within their rights to do so. It's just very unfortunate that many of these caches are some of the best ones in the area, with great vistas and nice hikes. Many of the local cachers are understandably upset, as many of the caches have been in place for years, and have caused no problems. The NPS even admits that "geocaching is a popular and admirable activity", however they're understaffed and don't have the manpower to manage any type of permit system which might allow caches in approved areas.

Hers's one example of a great cache that must be removed, and the ATC/NPS message the owners are getting:

White Rocks Trail cache

It would be nice if, in this era of high taxes and pork barrel politics, someone would put a little money aside to institute a permit system for the national parks so we could play this game in an acceptable, legal manner. I know, I know, dream on...

June 20, 2006

In the NPS's world view there is an axis of evil: Humans, their dogs and then geocaches. Ironically they love the humans money.

22k · June 20, 2006

Very interesting, since I recently listed a new cache on Appalachian Trail corridor property. Knowing of the efforts you describe in your post, I quizzed the cache owner very specifically about permission. The cache owner is a trail volunteer and he obtained permission from the official volunteer club that's in charge of maintenance for that segment of the AT. The e-mail I received from the person granting permission said that geocaches are welcome in the area of the trail which they maintain.

Based on that experience, I would not agree that there is an all-out ban on caches along the AT, but rather that there is an issue in one particular area of the trail.

June 20, 2006

NPS forbids caching on park land, why are you surprised they want the illegal caches pulled? I do not agree with the NPS, but their policy is well known.

1.4k · June 20, 2006

Call me daft...but I just don't get it.

Group hiking is allowed on the AT. Camping is allowed on the AT. Campfires are allowed on many segments as well.

All of these activities have much more impact on the land than geocaching.

My bet is that if geocaching was an exclusive granola sport, it'd be welcomed in the National Parks. Because we're composed of a very wide range of people including hunters, beer swillers and cityfolk, we're viewed as an undesirable element.

June 20, 2006

I'm glad the park properties are in such good shape that the biggest issue on their agenda is to rid their our land of geocaches. :blink: I will sleep better tonight.

Edit: sp

Edited June 20, 2006 by Blue Power Ranger

June 20, 2006

Very interesting, since I recently listed a new cache on Appalachian Trail corridor property. Knowing of the efforts you describe in your post, I quizzed the cache owner very specifically about permission. The cache owner is a trail volunteer and he obtained permission from the official volunteer club that's in charge of maintenance for that segment of the AT. The e-mail I received from the person granting permission said that geocaches are welcome in the area of the trail which they maintain.

Based on that experience, I would not agree that there is an all-out ban on caches along the AT, but rather that there is an issue in one particular area of the trail.

Why would you approve a cache on NPS land when it is clearly in violation of GC.com guidelines. The head of a volunteer trail club does NOT have the authority to speak for the NPS.

3.2k · June 20, 2006

In my other hobby I work with state and federal land managers all the time. In general It appears that the state (PA) works with the people and the feds against them. Blue Power Ranger has captured the attitudes perfectly with his "their/our land".

1.6k · June 20, 2006

Typical governmental eco babble.

from the post...

"As a former geocacher myself"

Former? Can you actually be a former geocacher?

"all recreation activities in national park areas have to be authorized to prevent unforseen impacts to the natural and cultural resources we protect."

Unforeseen impacts (need to speel chek)? In other words, we haven't seen any impacts but we are going to restrict this because we can.

"Geocaching is a popular and admirable activity, but the park service just hasn't had the time or the manpower to address concerns with impacts."

Nice way to put a chocolate coating on a turd sandwich. And who’s concerns are they?

"Without going into all the details, there may be very sensitive plant and animal communities on the corridor lands adjacent to the trail.

There are no details... THERE MAY BE sensitive plants and animals? So you don't know, just admit it and move on. Maybe we should just ban all activity along the AT because of the unforeseen impacts and the possibility of harming the potentially sensitive plants and animals.

Sorry, but sometimes I just think that stupidity should be painful.

11.3k · June 20, 2006

This is a case were TPTB on GC.com should allow new Virtuals where those caches were. I don't know how they would be set up, but a simple photo with the GPSr could be used, like this example for a Virtual in Canyon de Chelly National Park

Wouldn't it be great if those locations could be "Grandfathered" in as Virtuals, like the Virtuals in other National Parks?

If I were going to hike the AT, I would do a PQ for caches in the area, but I don't think I'm going to also check out Waymarking for "cool places where Geocaches used to be." :blink:

22k · June 20, 2006

Very interesting, since I recently listed a new cache on Appalachian Trail corridor property. Knowing of the efforts you describe in your post, I quizzed the cache owner very specifically about permission. The cache owner is a trail volunteer and he obtained permission from the official volunteer club that's in charge of maintenance for that segment of the AT. The e-mail I received from the person granting permission said that geocaches are welcome in the area of the trail which they maintain.

Based on that experience, I would not agree that there is an all-out ban on caches along the AT, but rather that there is an issue in one particular area of the trail.

Why would you approve a cache on NPS land when it is clearly in violation of GC.com guidelines. The head of a volunteer trail club does NOT have the authority to speak for the NPS.

I published this cache because the owner did his homework by obtaining written evidence of adequate permission, and the cache otherwise met the listing guidelines. It is hardly unique. There are other examples where the NPS has allowed caches on properties it manages or, as with the AT, where it shares management responsibilities.

1.4k · June 20, 2006

So, all I'd have to do in order to hide an ammocan in Yellowstone is to find a friendly volunteer on one of the trail maintenance groups to give me permission.

My uncle is such a person.

Sweeeeet.

June 20, 2006

Very interesting, since I recently listed a new cache on Appalachian Trail corridor property. Knowing of the efforts you describe in your post, I quizzed the cache owner very specifically about permission. The cache owner is a trail volunteer and he obtained permission from the official volunteer club that's in charge of maintenance for that segment of the AT. The e-mail I received from the person granting permission said that geocaches are welcome in the area of the trail which they maintain.

Based on that experience, I would not agree that there is an all-out ban on caches along the AT, but rather that there is an issue in one particular area of the trail.

Why would you approve a cache on NPS land when it is clearly in violation of GC.com guidelines. The head of a volunteer trail club does NOT have the authority to speak for the NPS.

I published this cache because the owner did his homework by obtaining written evidence of adequate permission, and the cache otherwise met the listing guidelines. It is hardly unique. There are other examples where the NPS has allowed caches on properties it manages or, as with the AT, where it shares management responsibilities.

I have a lot of respect for you Keystone but I respectfully disagree. The owner did NOT do his homework. He did not approach the NPS and ask for permission (probably because he knew it wouldn't be granted) and instead asked an aquaintance of his (the head of a vo;unteer trail maintenance organization) to grant permission. This person had NO authority to do so.

1.5k · June 20, 2006

Very interesting, since I recently listed a new cache on Appalachian Trail corridor property. Knowing of the efforts you describe in your post, I quizzed the cache owner very specifically about permission. The cache owner is a trail volunteer and he obtained permission from the official volunteer club that's in charge of maintenance for that segment of the AT. The e-mail I received from the person granting permission said that geocaches are welcome in the area of the trail which they maintain.

Based on that experience, I would not agree that there is an all-out ban on caches along the AT, but rather that there is an issue in one particular area of the trail.

There's a difference between caches in the corridor and caches on NPS owned land. Sally (the ATC staffer who's been sending the emails) is ATC staff, she is not employed by the NPS. She has (so far) only requested the caches on NPS owned land be pulled. Caches in state parks or on State Game Land (even within the 200' AT corridor) appear to be off her hit list, at least for the time being. Since Sally lives and works in our area, it makes sense that she's starting with the caches here. Maybe she won't cross state or other boundaries in her removal efforts, or maybe she will. Time will tell. The AT is managed by the NPS, the ATC and whatever other landowner may be involved. Obviously with so many management spheres of influence, the policies can be different depending on where you are. I would agree that there is not a ban on all caches along the AT, however, on some of the NPS owned portions of it there is newly instituted enforcement being done.

1.5k · June 20, 2006

I have a lot of respect for you Keystone but I respectfully disagree. The owner did NOT do his homework. He did not approach the NPS and ask for permission (probably because he knew it wouldn't be granted) and instead asked an aquaintance of his (the head of a vo;unteer trail maintenance organization) to grant permission. This person had NO authority to do so.

Not entirely correct. The ATC (Appalachian trail Conservancy) has been given regulation authority over the AT by the NPS, so it is very possible that he had adequate permission to place the cache. The NPS is not the sole controlling authority over the AT. however the NPS does provide law enforcement, and they are the only organization that can purchase land for the AT, the ATC cannot do those two things.

1.5k · June 20, 2006

So, all I'd have to do in order to hide an ammocan in Yellowstone is to find a friendly volunteer on one of the trail maintenance groups to give me permission.

My uncle is such a person.

Sweeeeet.

No. In National parks, the park director is the person who would need to give permission, according to NPS regulations. On the AT, the ATC shares regulatory responsibility with the NPS (set up that way by Congress in the law that formed the AT) so it's a different set of circumstances.

Edit: SP

Edited June 20, 2006 by DocDiTTo

22k · June 20, 2006

Very interesting, since I recently listed a new cache on Appalachian Trail corridor property. Knowing of the efforts you describe in your post, I quizzed the cache owner very specifically about permission. The cache owner is a trail volunteer and he obtained permission from the official volunteer club that's in charge of maintenance for that segment of the AT. The e-mail I received from the person granting permission said that geocaches are welcome in the area of the trail which they maintain.

Based on that experience, I would not agree that there is an all-out ban on caches along the AT, but rather that there is an issue in one particular area of the trail.

Why would you approve a cache on NPS land when it is clearly in violation of GC.com guidelines. The head of a volunteer trail club does NOT have the authority to speak for the NPS.

I published this cache because the owner did his homework by obtaining written evidence of adequate permission, and the cache otherwise met the listing guidelines. It is hardly unique. There are other examples where the NPS has allowed caches on properties it manages or, as with the AT, where it shares management responsibilities.

I have a lot of respect for you Keystone but I respectfully disagree. The owner did NOT do his homework. He did not approach the NPS and ask for permission (probably because he knew it wouldn't be granted) and instead asked an aquaintance of his (the head of a vo;unteer trail maintenance organization) to grant permission. This person had NO authority to do so.

That is a problem to be worked out between the NPS and the various Appalachian Trail Conference member organizations with which it shares management responsibility. It is not my problem to solve. Adequate evidence of permission was provided to me, and at that point I was happy to publish a cache for everyone to find.

As the person granting permission lives in a different state than the cache owner, I highly doubt that he just asked a hiking buddy if it was OK to place a geocache. I received a very formal e-mail sent to the cache owner. There was no cause for me to question its legitimacy.

If the NPS later overturns the permission granted for this geocache, it would not be the first time I've seen this happen. I can point to examples where a local-level NPS ranger granted permission, only to be reversed later by upper level management. Yet there are other examples where permission has not been overturned, and the geocache has thrived with no problems. It's not my job to guess which is which.

2.6k · June 20, 2006

Very interesting, since I recently listed a new cache on Appalachian Trail corridor property. Knowing of the efforts you describe in your post, I quizzed the cache owner very specifically about permission. The cache owner is a trail volunteer and he obtained permission from the official volunteer club that's in charge of maintenance for that segment of the AT. The e-mail I received from the person granting permission said that geocaches are welcome in the area of the trail which they maintain.

Based on that experience, I would not agree that there is an all-out ban on caches along the AT, but rather that there is an issue in one particular area of the trail.

Can you tell me which one this is, I would like to keep it on my watchlist.

22k · June 20, 2006

I am aware of several caches along the AT that have been hidden with permission. Under the present circumstances I do not think it is fair to the owners of those caches to call undue attention to them by listing them in this thread.

2.6k · June 20, 2006

I didn't mean to give them undue attention. I was interested in watching it so that I could attempt to find the cache in the future.

In the past two weeks I have seen probably three caches be archived. I did own two caches along the AT, they were adopted out. I believe the reasons that my caches were approved was because of the permission that was granted from the local park service.

It is sad to see the AT caches be archived.

Edited June 20, 2006 by LadeBear68

7.2k · June 20, 2006

I think Ms. Naser has been mis-informed on NPS policy.

Hmmm... As "a former geocacher" I wonder where she got that misconception?

Anyone think it might be time to change the listing guidelines to include "without explicit permission from the proper authority" in some of the "prohibited" areas? Presently it is not accurate and confusing--to say the least.

20.7k · June 20, 2006

Anyone think it might be time to change the listing guidelines to include "without explicit permission from the proper authority" in some of the "prohibited" areas? Presently it is not accurate and confusing--to say the least.

The guidelines work fine as written.

22k · June 20, 2006

So, all I'd have to do in order to hide an ammocan in Yellowstone is to find a friendly volunteer on one of the trail maintenance groups to give me permission.

My uncle is such a person.

Sweeeeet.

The two situations are clearly distinguishable. The Appalachian Trail is managed jointly by the NPS and the Appalachian Trail Conference. There is no such joint management of Yellowstone, though there may well be volunteers who help out with the trails there.

From the OP and the linked cache page, note that Ms. Naser (the person sending the e-mails) is a representative of the Appalachian Trail Conference. I can see no reason to distinguish between one representative of ATC who asks for a cache to be archived, and a different representative in another state who says that caches are "welcomed" along that segment of the AT. I'll pay attention to both of them.

June 20, 2006

Glad to see that caches are being cleared off the AT. I'm an avid cacher but in the future I plan to thru hike the trail. Would not like to run into a bunch of folks caching. I'd like to enjoy the solitude of nature. But that's just my opinion.

20.7k · June 20, 2006

Glad to see that caches are being cleared off the AT. I'm an avid cacher but in the future I plan to thru hike the trail. Would not like to run into a bunch of folks caching. I'd like to enjoy the solitude of nature. But that's just my opinion.

Perhaps you could call ahead and reserve the entire AT for your sole use.

Edited June 20, 2006 by sbell111

June 20, 2006

Glad to see that caches are being cleared off the AT. I'm an avid cacher but in the future I plan to thru hike the trail. Would not like to run into a bunch of folks caching. I'd like to enjoy the solitude of nature. But that's just my opinion.

Perhaps you could call ahead and reserve the entire AT for your sole use.

Now that would be superb, but I don't think it would happen. If you think you could hang, drop me a line and I'll invite you to come along. I'm going northbound.

1.5k · June 20, 2006

Glad to see that caches are being cleared off the AT. I'm an avid cacher but in the future I plan to thru hike the trail. Would not like to run into a bunch of folks caching. I'd like to enjoy the solitude of nature. But that's just my opinion.

Let us know when you're coming, and we'll be happy not to meet you on the trail. Of course, you may not get the same guarantee from other thru hikers, day hikers, hunters, or the many others who use the trail.

June 20, 2006

Glad to see that caches are being cleared off the AT. I'm an avid cacher but in the future I plan to thru hike the trail. Would not like to run into a bunch of folks caching. I'd like to enjoy the solitude of nature. But that's just my opinion.

Let us know when you're coming, and we'll be happy not to meet you on the trail. Of course, you may not get the same guarantee from other thru hikers, day hikers, hunters, or the many others who use the trail.

I'll be sure to drop you a line. Expecting to meet folks along the way (ie. thru hikers, day hikers, hunters, and other folks) but if we kept caches off the trail it may reduce the number of folks encountered.

June 20, 2006

Glad to see that caches are being cleared off the AT. I'm an avid cacher but in the future I plan to thru hike the trail. Would not like to run into a bunch of folks caching. I'd like to enjoy the solitude of nature. But that's just my opinion.

Let us know when you're coming, and we'll be happy not to meet you on the trail. Of course, you may not get the same guarantee from other thru hikers, day hikers, hunters, or the many others who use the trail.

I'll be sure to drop you a line. Expecting to meet folks along the way (ie. thru hikers, day hikers, hunters, and other folks) but if we kept caches off the trail it may reduce the number of folks encountered.

In all of my caching out on the trails (to include parts of the AT), I've run into 8 people (5 day hikers and 3 through hikers). I've only run into cachers once on any hiking trails. Even if those 8 people were cachers, I wouldn't known it. I would've just thought them day hikers or through hikers.

I am truly hoping that I'm missing some sarcasm in your comments. Plus, it sounds like you're going to be moving at a pretty good clip, so you'd probably pass any cachers by without even noticing.

Edited to add: I was just thinking that if we kept hikers off the trails, it may reduce the number of folks we encounter as well.

Edited June 20, 2006 by BRTango

June 20, 2006

(pssst, ET, try more fiber!)

38.2k · June 20, 2006

Glad to see that caches are being cleared off the AT. I'm an avid cacher but in the future I plan to thru hike the trail. Would not like to run into a bunch of folks caching. I'd like to enjoy the solitude of nature. But that's just my opinion.

Let us know when you're coming, and we'll be happy not to meet you on the trail. Of course, you may not get the same guarantee from other thru hikers, day hikers, hunters, or the many others who use the trail.

I'll be sure to drop you a line. Expecting to meet folks along the way (ie. thru hikers, day hikers, hunters, and other folks) but if we kept caches off the trail it may reduce the number of folks encountered.

Yeah, instead of meeting 11,545 people along the way, if caches are removed from the trail you'll probably encounter 11,504 along the way. If you enjoy the solitude of nature, the AT is not the place. Its one of the most heavily used hiking trails in North Ameraica and probably the world.

20.7k · June 20, 2006

Right on target, BrianSnat!

14.3k · June 20, 2006

We have had some luck negotiating with local parks districts on placements of geocaches. Many of our parks get ravaged by fires and the rangers have a legitimate reason to keep people from stomping around certain areas that are under recovery. However by establishing a formal approval process with clear rules, we have been able to get a few caches into those awesome but previously forbidden areas. For example one rule requires that the cache be within 6 feet of the trail. This pretty much limits the cache size to a small or micro to make it muggle-proof....but hey it's better than nothing! So if you guys are serious maybe someone should put together a proposal for the NPS and present it to them for consideration. The proposal should have stricter cache separation rules (perhaps one mile apart). It should also limit the distance the cache can be from the main trail. It seems like putting together a good proposal is the first step....

11.3k · June 20, 2006

Uh . . . you do realize you are proposing working out something logical and reasonable with the Federal Government . . . don't you?

8k · June 20, 2006

When I heard this report on the radio this morning, my thought was there goes any chance the NPS will start allowing caches.

June 20, 2006

When I heard this report on the radio this morning, my thought was there goes any chance the NPS will start allowing caches.

I'm guessing I'm one of the few(er) here that actually agree with that stance.

We don't need to be everywhere. (and yes, I will agree wholeheartedly that geocaching is much less environmentally damaging than snowmobling and 4-wheeling)

24.7k · June 20, 2006

If the NPS has a blanket ban on their lands. That's one thing. The lands they lease are for a purpose and probably not subject to the entire gamut of NPS rules and regs. Plus the land owner probably has not given up all their rights to the use of the land. The land owner may very well maintain the ability to give permission to hide a geocache on their lands while the NPS mistakenly thinks their blanket policy applies.

Someone would need to dredge up the lease document and read it for the real answer. It could also vary by property owner.

24.7k · June 20, 2006

...We don't need to be everywhere. (and yes, I will agree wholeheartedly that geocaching is much less environmentally damaging than snowmobling and 4-wheeling)

We actually had the right to wander the earth pole to pole, east to west before governments came along and told us that we couldn't. All rights not given to the government by the people are retained by the people. At least in this country.

Anywhere there is human activity there is the ability to place and seek caches in accordance with the rules of the land. Geocaching dovetails well with virtually all activities.

As a general rule this is my home my county and my land. The government as a rule should have dadgum good reason to ban me from any piece of it. Quite frankly they generally don't and assume more authority than they really have. Alas I lack the money to throw and army of lawyers at them to help them realize the error of their ways.

Being able to use the land is different from assuming that means the right to tear it up.

5.6k · June 20, 2006

Glad to see that caches are being cleared off the AT. I'm an avid cacher but in the future I plan to thru hike the trail. Would not like to run into a bunch of folks caching. I'd like to enjoy the solitude of nature. But that's just my opinion.

Let us know when you're coming, and we'll be happy not to meet you on the trail. Of course, you may not get the same guarantee from other thru hikers, day hikers, hunters, or the many others who use the trail.

I'll be sure to drop you a line. Expecting to meet folks along the way (ie. thru hikers, day hikers, hunters, and other folks) but if we kept caches off the trail it may reduce the number of folks encountered.

How are cachers different from day hikers? Both are on the the trail for the day or more.

Expecting solitude on the AT is pointless.

1.2k · June 20, 2006

Is it just me or does something sound fishie about the whole situation?

Sally has anyone left a number and contact information in her log, has anyone, (the cache owner) contacted her about the situation? maybe something can be worked out, and between the ATC and the cacher an appropriate spot can be found for the cache.

I find it peculiar that the ATC would go off, hunt down a cache and removed it, and not contact the owner before hand. Isn't this kind of like stealing? Not very good PR either.

Something doesn't smell right here. If "they're understaffed and don't have the manpower to manage any type of permit system", how do they find the time to hike out and search for a cache and retrieve it?

2.1k · June 20, 2006

Glad to see that caches are being cleared off the AT. I'm an avid cacher but in the future I plan to thru hike the trail. Would not like to run into a bunch of folks caching. I'd like to enjoy the solitude of nature. But that's just my opinion.

Just to give you a heads-up...don't be surprised when you get to the top of Greylock in MA and hit the parking lots, pavement, and cars.

I'm pretty sure it's not the only topper like that...the AT trail isn't as isolated as I think you're going to desire...try a long walk off a short pier instead.

1.5k · June 20, 2006

If the NPS has a blanket ban on their lands. That's one thing. The lands they lease are for a purpose and probably not subject to the entire gamut of NPS rules and regs. Plus the land owner probably has not given up all their rights to the use of the land. The land owner may very well maintain the ability to give permission to hide a geocache on their lands while the NPS mistakenly thinks their blanket policy applies.

Someone would need to dredge up the lease document and read it for the real answer. It could also vary by property owner.

Actually, you're right on the money. The NPS/ATC has Memorandums of understanding (MOU's) with each third party landowner who's land the AT crosses. These MOUs outline the width of the AT corridor, and what's permitted both inside and outside that corridor. On Game Lands, hunters may use the AT for access, etc. These MOUs are what define the rules, and are often used in place of a lease, at least where state agencies and departments are concerned. I have a copy of Pennyslvania's MOUs, there are somewhere around 30 of them, if I remember correctly. In state parks, for example, geocaches may be placed along the AT as long as a state park permit is obtained. In that case, the landowner overrides the NPS regulations. Often the NPS will defer to the landowner in such cases. On NPS owned land, though, NPS rules apply.

2.1k · June 20, 2006

Is it just me or does something sound fishie about the whole situation?

Sally has anyone left a number and contact information in her log, has anyone, (the cache owner) contacted her about the situation? maybe something can be worked out, and between the ATC and the cacher an appropriate spot can be found for the cache.

I find it peculiar that the ATC would go off, hunt down a cache and removed it, and not contact the owner before hand. Isn't this kind of like stealing? Not very good PR either.

Something doesn't smell right here. If "they're understaffed and don't have the manpower to manage any type of permit system", how do they find the time to hike out and search for a cache and retrieve it?

State rangers here in NC have gone out and removed caches in state parks before posting they have done so. A quick Google search shows Sally Naser is indeed who she says she is. Plus it shows up her name on this cache .

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...?ID=81366&log=y

Edited June 20, 2006 by Maingray

June 20, 2006

*sigh*

another bash at snowmobiling. i, too, always shudder at the visible damage when the snow melts.

please try to remain on topic, which is geocaching and the nps, and discuss hobbies you actually know.

June 20, 2006

So they don't have time to give permits but they have time to hike out to the cache and pick them up and email the owners and...

Seems like they have selective time to me.

14.3k · June 20, 2006

Uh . . . you do realize you are proposing working out something logical and reasonable with the Federal Government . . . don't you?

So I guess your point is that we should give up.....That's not the American spirit that I know and love! :rolleyes:

Where there's a will, there's a way! :rolleyes:

11.3k · June 21, 2006

That's why I suggested TPTB on GC.com allow those locations to be "grandfathered" in as Virtual caches. It isn't like there are no other Virtuals on this site now. :rolleyes:

That way, Geocachers will still be brought to the locations . . . while other cachers can continue to negotiate and plead and cajole government officials into allowing containers to be placed on NPS land. :rolleyes:

Its a thought . . .

1.4k · June 21, 2006

The truth is...

The National Park Service has NO policy regarding geocaching in particular. They do have a policy regarding unattended personal property and how it should be disposed of.

This policy would apply equally to a geocache, an ice chest or a fishing pole.

After 24 hours of being left unattended, it can be impounded for a period of 60 days after which it is considered abandoned and must be disposed of (sold) in accordance with 41CFR.

The same policy also requires that the impounded property be turned over to the park superintendant for disposition.

It would appear that Sally doesn't know the details of the policy she is attempting to enforce and is herself in violation of that policy.

10.1k · June 21, 2006

If the NPS has a blanket ban on their lands. That's one thing. The lands they lease are for a purpose and probably not subject to the entire gamut of NPS rules and regs. Plus the land owner probably has not given up all their rights to the use of the land. The land owner may very well maintain the ability to give permission to hide a geocache on their lands while the NPS mistakenly thinks their blanket policy applies.

Someone would need to dredge up the lease document and read it for the real answer. It could also vary by property owner.

Actually, you're right on the money. The NPS/ATC has Memorandums of understanding (MOU's) with each third party landowner who's land the AT crosses. These MOUs outline the width of the AT corridor, and what's permitted both inside and outside that corridor. On Game Lands, hunters may use the AT for access, etc. These MOUs are what define the rules, and are often used in place of a lease, at least where state agencies and departments are concerned. I have a copy of Pennyslvania's MOUs, there are somewhere around 30 of them, if I remember correctly. In state parks, for example, geocaches may be placed along the AT as long as a state park permit is obtained. In that case, the landowner overrides the NPS regulations. Often the NPS will defer to the landowner in such cases. On NPS owned land, though, NPS rules apply.

The Appalachian Trail through New Jersey runs through Worthington State Forest, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Stokes State Forest, High Point State Park, Pochuck State Park (it it's been formed yet), Wawayanda State Park, and Abrahan S. Hewitt State Forest. The only land there that the Fedral Government owns is the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. The majority of the land on which the Trail through New Jersey sits is owned by the State of New Jersey, and it subject to its regulations, not the regulations of the Federal Government. From the official AT brochure, printed by the Federal Government: 'Actual operations affecting use of the Trail are shared responsibilites of the National Park Servie, the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of agriculture, various agencies in the 14 states theough which it passes, the Appalachian Trail Conference, and dozens of hiking conferences and clubs.'

Also: "The Forest Service and states acquired much of the land and administer 850 and 420 miles, respectively.' It would seem that the administration of the lands belongs to whichever agency owns the land. Yes, the Trail traverses High Point State Park. That land is owned and administered by the State of New Jersey, not the Federal Government. You may not put a cache in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. NP regulations prevail there. Caches in the state parks and state forests would be regulated by the State of New Jersey, and not by the Federal Government.

14.3k · June 21, 2006

That's why I suggested TPTB on GC.com allow those locations to be "grandfathered" in as Virtual caches. It isn't like there are no other Virtuals on this site now.

That way, Geocachers will still be brought to the locations . . . while other cachers can continue to negotiate and plead and cajole government officials into allowing containers to be placed on NPS land.

Its a thought . . .

I think getting GC to allow virtuals in National Parks is a great idea but I doubt they will do it.

Just Venting...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment