+Miragee Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted 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. So I guess your point is that we should give up.....That's not the American spirit that I know and love! Where there's a will, there's a way! Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted 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. So I guess your point is that we should give up.....That's not the American spirit that I know and love! Where there's a will, there's a way! Actually I have tried! However, that slope is very steep and slippery. Seems like a lot of geocachers hate virtuals.....They insist that a cache isn't a cache unless it has some McCrap inside of it! Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted 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. So I guess your point is that we should give up.....That's not the American spirit that I know and love! Where there's a will, there's a way! Actually I have tried! However, that slope is very steep and slippery. Seems like a lot of geocachers hate virtuals.....They insist that a cache isn't a cache unless it has some McCrap inside of it! I think we should allow a new kind of cache for caches in parking lots where there is already another cache less than .1 mile away. There are a lot of lamppost skirts going to waste because geocaching.com doesn't allow this new kind of cache. Okay I guess it's silly to compare lamppost to the National Parks - but just because you can put a cache there (or a virtual cache) doesn't mean that every place needs a cache. TPTB have decided that this sport is about finding containers with logs in them. Visiting interesting places - with whatever definition of Wow! that you want - is something else (TPTB have called it Waymarking). Virtual caches were allowed at one time as an experiment to expand the sport. Many people enjoyed looking for them. But many were far lamer than the lamest lamppost hide. Guidelines were developed to restrict the virtuals to places that were at least interesting. But the subjective nature of this guideline led to problems for the reviewers. A large portion of their time was being spent on reviewing a tiny fraction of the caches submitted. Sorry for the off topic rant. I recently visited Death Valley National Park for a geocaching event. We visited (found?) several virtual caches there. One or two were interesting, but most were pretty mundane - despite being in a beautiful park. Several were physical caches that had been converted to virtuals when the NPS invoked its ban. One was in the self-service kiosk where you pay your park entrance fee. That one was really Wow! Quote Link to comment
+Team Cotati Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 (edited) 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. You know, I think that you have discovered the one thing that Waymarking.com is ill suited for. Congrats!! Edited June 21, 2006 by Team Cotati Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 This thread is for discussing the National Park Service policy towards geocaching, and specifically with reference to the Appalachian Trail. That is a useful discussion to have. The thread is not well suited for a discussion of virtual caches vs. waymarks, a hiker's desire for solitude, and other tangents. Please start different threads if you wish to discuss these issues. Thank you. Quote Link to comment
MapheadMike Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 This thread is for discussing the National Park Service policy towards geocaching, and specifically with reference to the Appalachian Trail. That is a useful discussion to have. I hope we can talk about the specific cache mentioned too . I got curious and took a look at the relevant county's GIS site, and used USAPhotoMaps (my preferred post-Lostoutdoors source for aerial photos and topo maps accurate enough to find almost 500 caches without a GPS) to get an accurate spot for the cache itself. The cache was really close to the boundary. Based on the map data available, I'd say it's about a meter outside of the NPS land. If it's north of the parcel line in question, it's on property owned by the National Park Service. If it's south, it's on property belonging to Penn Products Corporation, which may be seperate problem, but one which the NPS has no business involving itself in. Obviously, one meter is within the range of error of most GPS units and no one warrants the accuracy of their online map data to that level of accuracy, so it could go either way. But it's close enough to question whether or not the NPS had the right to remove the cache, if the owner feels like expending the effort. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Looking at the cache that the OP linked to, it was quite some distance from the AT - about .4 mile. I know the AT corridor varies in width throughout its length and a lot depends on who ownes the land that it runs through, but .4 mile away? I don't know the details of this specific spot, but I'm betting that this is not NPS administered land. Quote Link to comment
+DocDiTTo Posted June 21, 2006 Author Share Posted June 21, 2006 Looking at the cache that the OP linked to, it was quite some distance from the AT - about .4 mile. I know the AT corridor varies in width throughout its length and a lot depends on who ownes the land that it runs through, but .4 mile away? I don't know the details of this specific spot, but I'm betting that this is not NPS administered land. According to the NPS Boundary manager, they don't just administer it, they own it. All of the caches so far that have been removed, or for which removal has been requested by Sally, have been on NPS owned land. They apparently own a lot more land in our area than anyone realized. Unfortunately, the latest victim of the NPS was the Peter's Mountain Vista cache, which is one of our best hiking caches in this area. It even found it's way onto Lep's Favorites list. Some locals hiked out to it last night (7 mile trek) and pulled the cache. I'd have loved to go with them, but my daughter was sick, and I already have plans to go pull about 5 more caches along the AT tonight with some friends, including the Table Rock cache, a nice 4 mile round trip hike to yet another great vista. It seems the NPS must own most of the mountain where that cache is. If only we could get them to share a little bit. I think goecachers need their own lobbying group. Other caches which must be removed (just a partial list) White Rocks Trail Cache GCJ6NF Cove Mountain "Lights-in-the-Night" GCHF0J Cove Mountain Twenty-Dollar Cache GCHDFK TRAIL / PIKE CONFLUENCE GCHPTX Where do I PARK, Now What? GCRTGA Cardamom GCP5HA Cumberland Valley Cachet GCKB1H Great Scott another boring A.T. Cache GCMD5A A.T. Serenity I GCQJXQ A.T. Serenity II GCT41A Center Point Knob GCJ1TP Peters Mountain Vista GC8DA9 A Squirrel's Story GCVR0Q Table Rock Cache GC8B38 An Oldie, But a Goodie! GC82D5 Black Dog! GCM8Q0 Share Beauty. Spread Hope. GCM5HH Happy Bunny! GCM5HQ Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Looking at the cache that the OP linked to, it was quite some distance from the AT - about .4 mile. I know the AT corridor varies in width throughout its length and a lot depends on who ownes the land that it runs through, but .4 mile away? I don't know the details of this specific spot, but I'm betting that this is not NPS administered land. According to the NPS Boundary manager, they don't just administer it, they own it. All of the caches so far that have been removed, or for which removal has been requested by Sally, have been on NPS owned land. They apparently own a lot more land in our area than anyone realized. Unfortunately, the latest victim of the NPS was the Peter's Mountain Vista cache, which is one of our best hiking caches in this area. It even found it's way onto Lep's Favorites list. Some locals hiked out to it last night (7 mile trek) and pulled the cache. I'd have loved to go with them, but my daughter was sick, and I already have plans to go pull about 5 more caches along the AT tonight with some friends, including the Table Rock cache, a nice 4 mile round trip hike to yet another great vista. It seems the NPS must own most of the mountain where that cache is. If only we could get them to share a little bit. I think goecachers need their own lobbying group. Other caches which must be removed (just a partial list) White Rocks Trail Cache GCJ6NF Cove Mountain "Lights-in-the-Night" GCHF0J Cove Mountain Twenty-Dollar Cache GCHDFK TRAIL / PIKE CONFLUENCE GCHPTX Where do I PARK, Now What? GCRTGA Cardamom GCP5HA Cumberland Valley Cachet GCKB1H Great Scott another boring A.T. Cache GCMD5A A.T. Serenity I GCQJXQ A.T. Serenity II GCT41A Center Point Knob GCJ1TP Peters Mountain Vista GC8DA9 A Squirrel's Story GCVR0Q Table Rock Cache GC8B38 An Oldie, But a Goodie! GC82D5 Black Dog! GCM8Q0 Share Beauty. Spread Hope. GCM5HH Happy Bunny! GCM5HQ Its a shame to lose good hiking caches such as these. Perhaps some way could be devised to have the actual cache off NPS land, but use something where the current caches are as an offset. In the middle of the woods its tough, but if there are trail signs of any kind, they can be used, as well as formations of boulders, unusual trees, existing graffiti, etc... Quote Link to comment
+DocDiTTo Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 Its a shame to lose good hiking caches such as these. Perhaps some way could be devised to have the actual cache off NPS land, but use something where the current caches are as an offset. In the middle of the woods its tough, but if there are trail signs of any kind, they can be used, as well as formations of boulders, unusual trees, existing graffiti, etc... I've got some ideas for areas where NPS land butts up against state game lands, where we can (for now) hide caches. Offsets are the way to go in those places. One thing that's been bugging me - there's a catch 22 with the 200 foot AT corridor on state owned land. The NPS doesn't want caches in the corridor, so moving them 200 feet away from the trail would appear to be the "legal" solution. But then they're concerned about geo trails to the caches leading out of the corridor. Those geo trails wouldn't exist if we could hide caches right off the AT in the first place. But when you make us walk 200 feet off trail, chances are a side trail could form. So no caches in the corridor, and they really don't want caches outside the corridor to be accessed from the AT. It's a lose-lose situation for us. Luckily, NPS authority extends only inside the corridor, so while they may not like us caching 200 feet away, there isn't much they can do to prevent it. Quote Link to comment
+fishingfools Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Can you post contact info the the park ofice. We could send them letters and emails requesting they change their policy. May not do anything, but a strong grassroots letter campain may get thier attention. Quote Link to comment
+DocDiTTo Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 Can you post contact info the the park ofice. We could send them letters and emails requesting they change their policy. May not do anything, but a strong grassroots letter campain may get thier attention. www.appalachiantrail.org is the web site, and this contact page lists the ATC offices. The Appalachian Trail Park Manager at the NPS is Pamela Underhill. There are various directors and senior staff for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. The AT is administered from the office in Harper's Ferry, West Virginia. There's an ATC region office in Boiling Springs, PA, which is where Sally Naser works. She's there with other ATC staff and Todd Remaley, one of two park rangers for the entire trail. I'm not sure who would be the best contact, as there are so many officials in so many places... it's probably best to start locally and work from there. I don't think there's any one person who has sole authority to say "caches are ok". The trail has always been managed jointly on a national and local level by at least 2 and often more groups (NPS, ATC, and landowners). Quote Link to comment
+Jhwk Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Can you post contact info the the park ofice. We could send them letters and emails requesting they change their policy. May not do anything, but a strong grassroots letter campain may get thier attention. www.appalachiantrail.org is the web site, and this contact page lists the ATC offices. The Appalachian Trail Park Manager at the NPS is Pamela Underhill. There are various directors and senior staff for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. The AT is administered from the office in Harper's Ferry, West Virginia. There's an ATC region office in Boiling Springs, PA, which is where Sally Naser works. She's there with other ATC staff and Todd Remaley, one of two park rangers for the entire trail. I'm not sure who would be the best contact, as there are so many officials in so many places. How about our elected representatives? Hey, you could always hire me as your geocaching lobbyist. $$$$$ Quote Link to comment
+ar_kayaker Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I can tell you right now that it is an uphill battle to get the NPS or other government agency to change a policy or even at times to enforce an exsisting policy that DC has pushed down if they don't want to. Their other evil twin, the USFS, placed an abitrary ban against kayaking in the headwaters of a river several years ago that congress had designated as a WSR (wild and scenic river) specifically for use by non-powered boaters and hikers. There is STILL a legal battle going through the courts after 15 years because the USFS doesn't want anyone near the river except hunters and fishers saying that kayakers might adversely affect the river and no impact study has been done. Kayakers and canoeists where there before the fishers and hunters. Paddlers where the ones who lobbied to get the river designated as a WSR to preserve it. All the "damage" of liter and campfires too close to the waterline have been done in the years that kayakers have been banned from the area. And still the USFS refuses to allow paddlers access. You might be able to change the NPS policy against caches in time, but it will be a decade long uphill battle if you do. AR_kayaker Quote Link to comment
+Polgara Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Well, I got a tent, and a sleeping bag, and i'd be fine with camping out on the PA Senator's lawn till he made this right. Anyone want to have an event? Quote Link to comment
+BadAndy Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 There is STILL a legal battle going through the courts after 15 years because the USFS doesn't want anyone near the river except hunters and fishers saying that kayakers might adversely affect the river and no impact study has been done. Kayakers and canoeists where there before the fishers and hunters. I've venture a guess that there was hunting and fishing going on there for hundreds of years before kayakers showed up. Quote Link to comment
+Polgara Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 ...And congratulations to the NPS for setting the new record of being able to piss off 154,000+ people with a single geocaching log. Quote Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Sounds perfect for Waymarking.com, eh? Quote Link to comment
+Mary&Dave Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 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 a quick thought here -- if you enjoy the solitude of nature and would like to get that from a thru-hike, the AT is probably not the place for it. It's a social trail. Literally thousands of people start it each year. Hikers gather together in shelters. It can be a great experience, but it really isn't a lonely one. You might be better off looking at a thru-hike of the PCT or even (if you're up to the challenge) the CDT. Cheers. Quote Link to comment
+Vinny & Sue Team Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 (edited) There is STILL a legal battle going through the courts after 15 years because the USFS doesn't want anyone near the river except hunters and fishers saying that kayakers might adversely affect the river and no impact study has been done. Kayakers and canoeists where there before the fishers and hunters. I've venture a guess that there was hunting and fishing going on there for hundreds of years before kayakers showed up. No! No! No! First the universe and human life were created in the first seven days, and then, on the eighth day, way before anyone went hunting or fishing, God created kayaks (sit-on-top inflatable kayaks, of course)! Edited June 23, 2006 by Vinny & Sue Team Quote Link to comment
+Davispak Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 This is the whole problem with Government right now. there is probably 3-4 different agencies that have jurisdiction on the AT. Previously working in government, I can tell you that if you look hard enough, you will be able to find an agency that has jurisdiction and can grant permission for an activity and another that also has jurisdiction and has regulations forbidding the same activity. Its why people go to the Dept. of Agriculture for food stamps, Housing and urban development, for rent money, Social security for welfare, Medicaid, Dept of health for WIC. Here is a staggering figure. The federal Government spends over $126,000 dollars a year to help one family of four on "welfare" . That includes all monies sent to them and salaries of all Govt. employees that handle the paperwork. Quote Link to comment
+Shilo Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 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. We could save the endangered plants and wildlife too. Quote Link to comment
+Shilo Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 This is the whole problem: Government Sorry I butchered your post but this is all that was needed. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.