Why Is Nps Off Limits?

[+arpegio]

I'm curious, is there a story behind why NPS is off limits? Was there an incident? Since NPS is public-owned land, why isn't there some sort of lobbying effort to make NPS land open for geocachers?

[+unicyclist]

I am not sure for a fact BUT I think that national parks are extremly traveled to. Geocaching would easly create a trail to and from the geocache. These trails are discourged apon because they ruin the scenery. At GeoWoodstock4 there was a geocache about 20 feet from the road in a rotten tree bowl. This one was very popular and by the end of the event was a mini dirt trial.

[uperdooper]

it's a good thing that ATV's and snowmobiles don't do any damage.

[+The Leprechauns]

As a practical matter, one can look at the actions of NPS officials. I can think of several real life examples that fit this pattern:

 

Local ranger gives permission for geocache in NPS-managed area. Reviewer publishes cache based on assurance of adequate permission. Higher-up official within NPS reverses the decision based on national policy, and the cache is archived.

 

Or how about all the caches removed by NPS rangers following the issuance of the bulletin referenced above?

 

From what I've read here so far, the decision is either the park superintendent's call, or from someone higher up. Documentation I've found on the web seems to indicate conflicting policies for individual parks, yet there's apparently some higher authority you're referring to. Do you have any specific information on the bulletin that was issued? Did it apply to every park, or just one?

 

There still seems to be some question about policies, and at what level they're set. This is exactly what I was trying to figure out from the beginning.

 

The single document pointed to most often as the origin/basis for the "ban on geocaching" in areas managed by the National Park Service ("NPS") is the "Morning Report" from March 22, 2001. That bulletin has been referenced above. It's no longer online, but I happen to have found a copy in my reference materials and it's reproduced below. Reading this document may help people to better understand the reasoning behind some of the site's listing guidelines, such as the "no buried caches" guideline.

 

Note that I said "areas managed by" the NPS -- not "National Parks." The issue is far wider than just U.S. National Parks. I have several anecdotal examples from individual NPS offices, such as correspondence from National Recreation Areas and National Monuments. But it all started with this:

 

Geocaching - There is a new web-based activity called geocaching that has affected several National Park Service areas. The Ranger Activities Division asked Olympic NP SA Mike Butler to investigate. Here's his report: Geocaching is an activity in which participants hide a cache and take a position at the location using a GPS receiver. The position is then published on the group's web site with an invitation to search for the "treasure." Caches often contain a notebook or log book and something the finder may take. The finder is asked to put another item in the cache for others to discover and will often report the find on the web site. Several caches have been found in National Park Service areas. The webmaster for the site has been contacted. He was very surprised that geocaching is illegal in NPS areas, and understood NPS concerns about the damage geocaching has and can cause to historic, archeological and natural sites. He agreed to work with the Service to discourage further geocaching activities in parks.

 

Two related activities were also discovered. Letterboxing is a phenomenon similar to geocaching in that a player takes directions from a web site and uses those directions to find a hidden object. In letterboxing, the directions come in the form of a riddle and the hidden object is a stamp which the finder can use to stamp a piece of paper to prove that he has visited the site. The web site showed the location of at least two letterboxes in parks. The parks have been notified, but the Service has not yet contacted the webmaster or game managers. The Degree Confluence Project is another web-based activity where people try to visit various latitude and longitude integer degree intersections and report their findings on the web site. In this case, however, no objects are placed in the ground, and there are no apparent regulatory violations in areas where cross-country travel is allowed or where the confluence is not on a protected site. There has been no attempt to contact the project organizers.

 

Additional comments referring to sections of the Code of Federal Regulations: The depositing of the cache, be it a bucket or other type of container, could be in violation of a few regulations like digging up plants if it was being buried. Additionally, it is against regulations to leave property unattended for more than 24 hours without it being subject to impoundment. If people are "hunting" for something, it could certainly take more than 24 hours to find. Lastly, some areas are closed to off-trail hiking which could prohibit someone from going off trail to place or retrieve a cache.

I love the new quote feature; you can lift a post from an old thread on the same subject, and paste it into the new topic when it comes up the next time. I should just bookmark all the common topics.

[+Colorado Cacher]

I may be totally wrong, but if I had some of their items in my backyard I don't think I would want everybody waltzing around in, near, upon it either. And I am not pointing fingers here at anybody in particular, just saying a fact.

 

I read where Richard Wetherill and family ran cattle through Mesa Verde for years-and never took any relics out-before they advised the government of its existance. When they advised the government that it did exist the governemnt at the time said, "whatever." it was then that Wetherill began cataloging, photographing, and removing artifacts.

 

When the feds heard this they decided to change their mind, and said no to taking anything out of Mesa Verde. Alot of artifacts are also over in Finland/Iceland(?) in a museum due to the fact that another archeologist was there at the time with Wetherill, and sent numerous items back to his homeland at the time. I can't for the life of me remeber his name.

 

For a fascinating read find the book with the title "Richard Wetherill: Anasazi: Pioneer Explorer of Southwestern Ruins," ISBN 0826303293, by University of New Mexico press.

[+sbell111]

I may be totally wrong, but if I had some of their items in my backyard I don't think I would want everybody waltzing around in, near, upon it either. And I am not pointing fingers here at anybody in particular, just saying a fact.

 

I read where Richard Wetherill and family ran cattle through Mesa Verde for years-and never took any relics out-before they advised the government of its existance. When they advised the government that it did exist the governemnt at the time said, "whatever." it was then that Wetherill began cataloging, photographing, and removing artifacts.

 

When the feds heard this they decided to change their mind, and said no to taking anything out of Mesa Verde. Alot of artifacts are also over in Finland/Iceland(?) in a museum due to the fact that another archeologist was there at the time with Wetherill, and sent numerous items back to his homeland at the time. I can't for the life of me remeber his name.

 

For a fascinating read find the book with the title "Richard Wetherill: Anasazi: Pioneer Explorer of Southwestern Ruins," ISBN 0826303293, by University of New Mexico press.

Respectfully, what does your post have to do with a tupperware container covered with sticks?

[CoyoteRed]

I'm curious, is there a story behind why NPS is off limits? Was there an incident? Since NPS is public-owned land, why isn't there some sort of lobbying effort to make NPS land open for geocachers?

 

I think Lep's post above is very enlightening.

 

Geocaching on NPS is banned outright, but you certainly have to have more than implied permission. "Adequate permission" in these cases is a lot more than "Oh, some guy said I could."

 

Besides the above mentioned regulation violations there are more. Hiding a cache without proper permission could land you with at least four federal violations. However, these all become moot with permission.

 

This is not theory, either. There are caches in National Parks. You'd better believe the permission is solid, though.

[+Quiggle]

There are some previous threads worth reading

• Fairly long thread started by DocDiTTo in May: National Park Service & Geocaching, what's the history here?
  
• Offshoot thread (also by DocDiTTo) from June: Just Venting..., NPS, the AT, and caches
  

Hope that helps.

[+9Key]

I heard the original issue started with a cache that was buried on NPS land, but that could just be a rumour. If its true, I bet the guy that hid the cache would like a do-over.

[+sbell111]

I heard the original issue started with a cache that was buried on NPS land, but that could just be a rumour. If its true, I bet the guy that hid the cache would like a do-over.

I thought it started over a misunderstanding as to what caching was. Somebody at NPS heard about caching and mistakenly thought the caches would be buried. It steamrolled from there.

 

One or both of us may be wrong.

[+cassiev2]

I heard the original issue started with a cache that was buried on NPS land, but that could just be a rumour. If its true, I bet the guy that hid the cache would like a do-over.

I thought it started over a misunderstanding as to what caching was. Somebody at NPS heard about caching and mistakenly thought the caches would be buried. It steamrolled from there.

 

One or both of us may be wrong.

 

At a recent American Revolution re-enactment sponsored by and held at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, I had the pleasure of talking to one of the NPS officers. She said National Parks were created to preserve and showcase a particular geographic area, not for recreational activities. Guilford Courthouse NMP was a major battlesite of the Revolutionary War, it's main function is to showcase this history. All events, park information, and store are centered on the history of the location. While of course you can walk/jog/bike on the paths, she said that this is not a state park where you can sunbathe or play frisbee. She had quite an amusing story about the sunbather that morning who didn't understand why sunbathing in a bathing suit was not appropriate and that she had to put her clothes back on.

 

Another example: Congaree National Park is the largest expanse of old growth flood plain forest. They have walking trails, back country camping, and fishing. Their focus is the environment and wildlife. No playground, no game fields or volleyball nets.

 

In summary, the purpose of a National Park is different than a State Park, therefore the allowed activities at each are different.

 

cassiev2

[+sbell111]

At a recent American Revolution re-enactment sponsored by and held at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, I had the pleasure of talking to one of the NPS officers. She said National Parks were created to preserve and showcase a particular geographic area, not for recreational activities. Guilford Courthouse NMP was a major battlesite of the Revolutionary War, it's main function is to showcase this history. All events, park information, and store are centered on the history of the location. While of course you can walk/jog/bike on the paths, she said that this is not a state park where you can sunbathe or play frisbee. She had quite an amusing story about the sunbather that morning who didn't understand why sunbathing in a bathing suit was not appropriate and that she had to put her clothes back on.

I can't express how stupid I believe their position to be. Apparently, walking, jogging, biking, snowmobiling, etc are not considered 'recreational activities'. We sure wouldn't want someone to sunbathe. That is dangerous to the park.

[+9Key]

she had to put her clothes back on

Buzzkill

[+briansnat]

At a recent American Revolution re-enactment sponsored by and held at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, I had the pleasure of talking to one of the NPS officers. She said National Parks were created to preserve and showcase a particular geographic area, not for recreational activities. Guilford Courthouse NMP was a major battlesite of the Revolutionary War, it's main function is to showcase this history. All events, park information, and store are centered on the history of the location. While of course you can walk/jog/bike on the paths, she said that this is not a state park where you can sunbathe or play frisbee. She had quite an amusing story about the sunbather that morning who didn't understand why sunbathing in a bathing suit was not appropriate and that she had to put her clothes back on.

I can't express how stupid I believe their position to be. Apparently, walking, jogging, biking, snowmobiling, etc are not considered 'recreational activities'. We sure wouldn't want someone to sunbathe. That is dangerous to the park.

 

..and camping, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding - all allowed in national parks.

[+Ambrosia]

At a recent American Revolution re-enactment sponsored by and held at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, I had the pleasure of talking to one of the NPS officers. She said National Parks were created to preserve and showcase a particular geographic area, not for recreational activities. Guilford Courthouse NMP was a major battlesite of the Revolutionary War, it's main function is to showcase this history. All events, park information, and store are centered on the history of the location. While of course you can walk/jog/bike on the paths, she said that this is not a state park where you can sunbathe or play frisbee. She had quite an amusing story about the sunbather that morning who didn't understand why sunbathing in a bathing suit was not appropriate and that she had to put her clothes back on.

I can't express how stupid I believe their position to be. Apparently, walking, jogging, biking, snowmobiling, etc are not considered 'recreational activities'. We sure wouldn't want someone to sunbathe. That is dangerous to the park.

 

..and camping, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding - all allowed in national parks.

I think I feel my blood pressure rising.

[+Byron & Anne]

Public lands that have banned or controlled geocaching do so because they can. As far as I've been able to determine that's the only reason. They have the same access to gc.com as the rest of us and use it against us.

 

As for the National Park System, it appears that the system has evolved into a series of modified Disney Land amusument parks. The public is only allowed in certain areas, and can only do the Park people say. That leaves the rest of the park land for park employee recreation. If you had control over say Yellowstone Park, you'd want to keep everybody out and away from your favorite places too with the park. Force all visitors into as small an area as you can get away with. Make sure nothing happens to get visitors into any place else.

 

OK OK, enough RANT.

[+Renegade Knight]

I heard the original issue started with a cache that was buried on NPS land, but that could just be a rumour. If its true, I bet the guy that hid the cache would like a do-over.

I thought it started over a misunderstanding as to what caching was. Somebody at NPS heard about caching and mistakenly thought the caches would be buried. It steamrolled from there.

 

One or both of us may be wrong.

They 'supposed' they were buried. Their ban was a pre-emptive strike.

[+Renegade Knight]

...At a recent American Revolution re-enactment sponsored by and held at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, I had the pleasure of talking to one of the NPS officers. She said National Parks were created to preserve and showcase a particular geographic area, not for recreational activities....

 

She doesn't seem to understand that in order to showcase an area you have to allow recreatinoal activities. Visiting a park is in and of itself a recreational activity. So is the hiking, camping, photography, bike riding etc. they permit to allow people to see and enjoy what they are shocasing. If the NPS cut off the recreational part to preserve the park at 100% for the enjoyment of nobody then the NPS serves no purpose.

 

In other words the purpose of the NPS is Preservation for the people and not from the people." They often forget that and just go for Preservation from the people.

[Sadie]

I fail to see where hiking and all recreational activities have equal meaning. The idea of allowing ATV's and dirtbikes into a showcase doesn't even make sense.

 

I am all for having geocaches in NPS property, but slamming the NPS for doing what they feel is right is not helping our position.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Sadie

[+arpegio]

It looks like the major issue is that the NPS has a rule against leaving items on the grounds unattended for more than 24 hours, and a cache would be in violation. That makes sense.

 

However, since Geocaching is designed to promote local locales and history, I don't see why the NPS couldn't make an exception, provided there was an agreement on rules and placement. Surely, a large group could petition to have some special provisions made.

[+briansnat]

At a recent American Revolution re-enactment sponsored by and held at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, I had the pleasure of talking to one of the NPS officers. She said National Parks were created to preserve and showcase a particular geographic area, not for recreational activities. Guilford Courthouse NMP was a major battlesite of the Revolutionary War, it's main function is to showcase this history. All events, park information, and store are centered on the history of the location. While of course you can walk/jog/bike on the paths, she said that this is not a state park where you can sunbathe or play frisbee. She had quite an amusing story about the sunbather that morning who didn't understand why sunbathing in a bathing suit was not appropriate and that she had to put her clothes back on.

I can't express how stupid I believe their position to be. Apparently, walking, jogging, biking, snowmobiling, etc are not considered 'recreational activities'. We sure wouldn't want someone to sunbathe. That is dangerous to the park.

 

..and camping, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding - all allowed in national parks.

 

It is disturbing that NPS employees have such a skewed idea of funcion of national parks.

 

The 1871 act that established the first national park, Yellowstone said in part "...is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people...

 

The act that established the National Park Service states in part "...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."

 

The NPS's mission statement says in part "...The National park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.

 

The NPS website mentions "recreation" as the very first entry on their web page after their name.

 

So for a NPS employee to say that the national parks are not for recreational activities is beyond ridiculious.

[Sadie]

At a recent American Revolution re-enactment sponsored by and held at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, I had the pleasure of talking to one of the NPS officers. She said National Parks were created to preserve and showcase a particular geographic area, not for recreational activities. Guilford Courthouse NMP was a major battlesite of the Revolutionary War, it's main function is to showcase this history. All events, park information, and store are centered on the history of the location. While of course you can walk/jog/bike on the paths, she said that this is not a state park where you can sunbathe or play frisbee. She had quite an amusing story about the sunbather that morning who didn't understand why sunbathing in a bathing suit was not appropriate and that she had to put her clothes back on.

I can't express how stupid I believe their position to be. Apparently, walking, jogging, biking, snowmobiling, etc are not considered 'recreational activities'. We sure wouldn't want someone to sunbathe. That is dangerous to the park.

 

..and camping, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding - all allowed in national parks.

 

It is disturbing that NPS employees have such a skewed idea of funcion of national parks.

 

The 1871 act that established the first national park, Yellowstone said in part "...is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people...

 

The act that established the National Park Service states in part "...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."

 

The NPS's mission statement says in part "...The National park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.

 

The NPS website mentions "recreation" as the very first entry on their web page after their name.

 

So for a NPS employee to say that the national parks are not for recreational activities is beyond ridiculious.

 

Now, let's change the bold parts.

-----------------

The 1871 act that established the first national park, Yellowstone said in part "...is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people...

 

The act that established the National Park Service states in part "...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."

 

The NPS's mission statement says in part "...The National park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.

 

---------------

just playing devil's advocate.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Sadie

[+briansnat]

At a recent American Revolution re-enactment sponsored by and held at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, I had the pleasure of talking to one of the NPS officers. She said National Parks were created to preserve and showcase a particular geographic area, not for recreational activities. Guilford Courthouse NMP was a major battlesite of the Revolutionary War, it's main function is to showcase this history. All events, park information, and store are centered on the history of the location. While of course you can walk/jog/bike on the paths, she said that this is not a state park where you can sunbathe or play frisbee. She had quite an amusing story about the sunbather that morning who didn't understand why sunbathing in a bathing suit was not appropriate and that she had to put her clothes back on.

I can't express how stupid I believe their position to be. Apparently, walking, jogging, biking, snowmobiling, etc are not considered 'recreational activities'. We sure wouldn't want someone to sunbathe. That is dangerous to the park.

 

..and camping, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding - all allowed in national parks.

 

It is disturbing that NPS employees have such a skewed idea of funcion of national parks.

 

The 1871 act that established the first national park, Yellowstone said in part "...is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people...

 

The act that established the National Park Service states in part "...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."

 

The NPS's mission statement says in part "...The National park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.

 

The NPS website mentions "recreation" as the very first entry on their web page after their name.

 

So for a NPS employee to say that the national parks are not for recreational activities is beyond ridiculious.

 

Now, let's change the bold parts.

-----------------

The 1871 act that established the first national park, Yellowstone said in part "...is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people...

 

The act that established the National Park Service states in part "...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."

 

The NPS's mission statement says in part "...The National park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.

 

---------------

just playing devil's advocate.

 

Changing the bold parts doesn't change the stated purpose of national parks.

[+Colorado Cacher]

I may be totally wrong, but if I had some of their items in my backyard I don't think I would want everybody waltzing around in, near, upon it either. And I am not pointing fingers here at anybody in particular, just saying a fact.

 

I read where Richard Wetherill and family ran cattle through Mesa Verde for years-and never took any relics out-before they advised the government of its existance. When they advised the government that it did exist the governemnt at the time said, "whatever." it was then that Wetherill began cataloging, photographing, and removing artifacts.

 

When the feds heard this they decided to change their mind, and said no to taking anything out of Mesa Verde. Alot of artifacts are also over in Finland/Iceland(?) in a museum due to the fact that another archeologist was there at the time with Wetherill, and sent numerous items back to his homeland at the time. I can't for the life of me remeber his name.

 

For a fascinating read find the book with the title "Richard Wetherill: Anasazi: Pioneer Explorer of Southwestern Ruins," ISBN 0826303293, by University of New Mexico press.

Respectfully, what does your post have to do with a tupperware container covered with sticks?

 

NPS(National Parks Service)=Federal Property. That what this post is about. Mesa Verde is NPS.

 

No Offense, but that is what this post is about. And maybe that is why I was speaking of the Federal Governments Park system.

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

 

Changing the bold parts doesn't change the stated purpose of national parks.

 

Briansnat must not be a government bureaucrat. Having been one for many years, I am well aware that some parts of the mission statement and regulations are strictly enforced while other parts are ignored, depending on who is in charge. And this is quite logical since in almost all government agencies there are conflicts within their mission statements and regulations that cannot all be enforced at the same time. The mission statements and regulations are always political compromises.

[+Colorado Cacher]

 

Changing the bold parts doesn't change the stated purpose of national parks.

 

Briansnat must not be a government bureaucrat. Having been one for many years, I am well aware that some parts of the mission statement and regulations are strictly enforced while other parts are ignored, depending on who is in charge. And this is quite logical since in almost all government agencies there are conflicts within their mission statements and regulations that cannot all be enforced at the same time. The mission statements and regulations are always political compromises.

 

Sounds like it really doesn't work as good as we all think it does.

[+queen_ladybug]

This was something interesting that I found on the NPS website. It is a draft of Management Policies dated June 16, 2006. I'm taking it to read that caching may be allowable under the new policies (provided the draft becomes a final edition) if the supervisor of that particular park determines it to be acceptable. There is no other mention whatsoever of Geocaching, terracaching, letterboxing, etc.

 

Is this a step forward? Maybe not, but I did find it interesting.

 

8.2.2 Recreational Activities

The National Park Service will manage recreational activities according to the criteria listed in sections 8.1 and 8.2 (and 6.4 in wilderness areas). Examples of such recreational activities include, but are not limited to, boating, camping, bicycling, fishing, hiking, horseback riding and packing, outdoor sports, picnicking, scuba diving, cross-country skiing, caving, mountain and rock climbing, earth caching and swimming. However, not all of these activities will be appropriate or allowable in all parks; that determination must be made on the basis of park-specific planning. Service-wide regulations addressing aircraft use, off-road bicycling, hang gliding, off-road vehicle use, personal watercraft, and snowmobiling require that special, park-specific regulations be developed before these uses may be allowed in parks.

 

The Service will monitor new or changing patterns of use or trends in recreational activities, and assess their potential impacts on park resources. A new form of recreational activity will not be allowed within a park until a superintendent has made a determination that it will be appropriate and not cause unacceptable impacts to park resources. Restrictions placed on recreational uses that have been found to be appropriate will be limited to the minimum necessary to protect park resources and values, and promote visitor safety and enjoyment.

[+The Leprechauns]

Don't get your hopes up, Queen Ladybug. It says "earth caching," not "geocaching." The earthcaching category at Waymarking.com doesn't allow for cache containers. The same was true when earthcaches were a cache type on Geocaching.com. I know someone who tried to hide an earthcache that included a container full of materials related to the geological feature showcased by the cache. The cache was rejected.

 

Provided that the earthcacher doesn't travel to areas that are off limits, or otherwise in violation of regulations applicable to all visitors, then IMHO no permission ought to be required in order to publish the coordinates of a point of interest on Waymarking.com.

[+TerryDad2]

I was recently working with a national park to set up a puzzle cache as a demonstration project. They are going through the final approval process to get it active. Maybe by the end of next month it will be available. The key to this demonstration project is that the cache was developed by the rangers and will be monitored by the rangers. I would expect that if the project is successful any new caches in the parks would have to be developed by the local rangers or at least sponsored by them. It is at least a start in the right direction.

 

I also have some earthcaches to be set up at the same national park. They are still reviewing them as well. It seems there are different policy departments, one that has already approved the earthcache idea (the geological resources division) and the national policy group that is evaluating the traditional geocaches.

[+briansnat]

I also have some earthcaches to be set up at the same national park. They are still reviewing them as well. It seems there are different policy departments, one that has already approved the earthcache idea (the geological resources division) and the national policy group that is evaluating the traditional geocaches.

 

I would think earth caches, as well as virtuals and waymarks are none of their beeswax. There is no object being left behind, only a set of coordinates posted on the web. There is a little something called the first amendment that would prevent their banning or regulating virtuals, earth caches and the like.

 

That said, its best to play nice and if they think they have the power to regulate them, I don't think arguing would be productive. Esp. if we ever hope for them to reconsider geocaches on NPS land.

[+Team Torque]

On the TV show Treasure Hunt they didn't have any problems with them hiding some containers with numeric electronic keypads at Mount Rushmore. They looked like bombs in my opinion. When I was there the security was very tough. I have no problem with the NPS not allowing caches in target areas like that but most national parks are not targets and it should be allowed with permit.

[+Jhwk]

so, you've ranted on here - have you called your representatives in Congress?

[+Davispak]

 

Changing the bold parts doesn't change the stated purpose of national parks.

 

Briansnat must not be a government bureaucrat. Having been one for many years, I am well aware that some parts of the mission statement and regulations are strictly enforced while other parts are ignored, depending on who is in charge. And this is quite logical since in almost all government agencies there are conflicts within their mission statements and regulations that cannot all be enforced at the same time. The mission statements and regulations are always political compromises.

 

remember it is easier to just say no than to have to actually do something. As stated above, though, Govt. regulations are written so that they really ALLOW and BAN an activity. This way it can be allowed or stopped depending on who you talk to. i mean come on, we spend over $115k a year on each "poor" family( this includes all salaries and building maintenance and the like) How can you expect a Government that spends more money per family yet we still have poor, to be able to regulate parks?

[AZcachemeister]

Because:

A. They want to be.

B.They are big enough to get what they want.

[+TerryDad2]

I would think earth caches, as well as virtuals and waymarks are none of their beeswax. There is no object being left behind, only a set of coordinates posted on the web. There is a little something called the first amendment that would prevent their banning or regulating virtuals, earth caches and the like.

 

That said, its best to play nice and if they think they have the power to regulate them, I don't think arguing would be productive. Esp. if we ever hope for them to reconsider geocaches on NPS land.

 

The only concerns I've heard from the rangers regarding placement of earthcaches are scientific accuracy (their name is associated with the earthcache), safety concerns about the location (they are the ones that have to save someone or notify next of kin), preservation of unique and sacred archeological locations (we forcably stole the land and that's the least we can do), and preservation of park resources (preventing geotrails). These are all resonable concerns and since they are charged with managing the land they get to make the rules.

 

Our lobby is not as big as the snowmobilers association, so we have a harder time getting our recreational past time approved especially since we all run around in swim suits that are inappropriate uses of NPS land .

[+sbell111]

I fail to see where hiking and all recreational activities have equal meaning. The idea of allowing ATV's and dirtbikes into a showcase doesn't even make sense.

 

I am all for having geocaches in NPS property, but slamming the NPS for doing what they feel is right is not helping our position.

I think that you missed the irony in the posts regarding ATVs, dirtbikes, and snowmobiles. I believe that all who participate in this forum will agree that geocaching has no where near the impact as ATVs and the like. I find it to be totally rediculous that those activities are allowed in some areas, while geocaching is not.

[+Blue Power Ranger]

so, you've ranted on here - have you called your representatives in Congress?

 

Click Here if you want to contact your representative.

[+budd-rdc]

I was recently working with a national park to set up a puzzle cache as a demonstration project. They are going through the final approval process to get it active. Maybe by the end of next month it will be available. The key to this demonstration project is that the cache was developed by the rangers and will be monitored by the rangers. I would expect that if the project is successful any new caches in the parks would have to be developed by the local rangers or at least sponsored by them. It is at least a start in the right direction.

 

I also have some earthcaches to be set up at the same national park. They are still reviewing them as well. It seems there are different policy departments, one that has already approved the earthcache idea (the geological resources division) and the national policy group that is evaluating the traditional geocaches.

Please keep us updated on your demonstration project's progress.

 

If NPS ever wants to ease up on the ban, I can see how the pamphlet/guidebook boxes in front of visitor's centers and along the trails can be used as Geocaches. In fact, if they give us permission to do double those as Geocaches, I can think of several cachers in my area who'll volunteer to construct some high quality boxes for them.

[+TerryDad2]

If NPS ever wants to ease up on the ban, I can see how the pamphlet/guidebook boxes in front of visitor's centers and along the trails can be used as Geocaches. In fact, if they give us permission to do double those as Geocaches, I can think of several cachers in my area who'll volunteer to construct some high quality boxes for them.

 

That was actually one of the concerns that came up, the perceived cost by the NPS in creating and maintaining any sinage that would be associated with the pilot project. They also have to jump through many hoops to get new signes even approved for placement.

[+JimmyEv]

What irks me about nps land being off limits is that it is based on an assumption of ecological damage from geocaching. If anyone actually did a study on the ecological damage, I'm pretty sure that their results would show that caches do cause ecological damage within a set radius from a vehicular access point. Caches placed beyond that radius most likely cause no damage. This was in evidence (as pointed out above) at Geowoodstock. Caches within 0.25 miles of the road had social trails develop. Those further down the trails did not. One cache that was an 8 mile roundtrip hike (or bike) only had a handful of visitors the entire weekend (I think there were only 3). This might indicate a need for nps to control placement but it doesn't seem like there should be an outright ban.

[+shammond]

This is kind of related, I think...

 

In the Wayne National Forest of Southern Ohio, No caches are to be place near the ATV trails, or in any developed recreational areas e.g. Lake Vesuvius (an area with plenty of traffic and hiking trails). However caches can be placed in other areas of the National Forest with permission. How does that make sense? Not in the park, but somewhere out in the woods off the side of state route 93 would be okay? I don't get it...

[+Audion64]

Caches within 0.25 miles of the road had social trails develop. Those further down the trails did not.

 

Very true. This is why I can't understand why so many of the local level Forest Preserve Districts policies always seem to require that caches be placed within 30 feet or so of the existing designated trails. Doing this almost guarantees that a geotrail will eventually form. By placing the cache much further off the trail, cachers will tend to use more randomized paths to reach the cache, thereby lessening the chance of a geotrail.

 

Ack, off topic... my bad.

[+Savoy 6]

Probably the most famous Pogo quotation is "we have met the enemy and he is us."

[+ADS1]

so, you've ranted on here - have you called your representatives in Congress?

 

Click Here if you want to contact your representative.

 

The National Park Sub-Committee consists of the following members:

Mr. Steve Pearce, New Mexico, Chairman

 

Mrs. Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

 

Jim Saxton, NJ Dale E. Kildee , MI

Elton Gallegly, CA

Neil Abercrombie , HI

John J. Duncan, Jr. TN Ron Kind, WI

George P. Radanovich, CA

Tom Udall, NM

Walter B. Jones, NC Madeleine Bordallo, GU

Henry Brown, Jr., SC

Charlie Melancon, LA

Luis G. Fortuno, PR

Nick J. Rahall, II, WV, ex officio

Marilyn Musgrave, CO

Richard W. Pombo, CA, ex officio

 

Note: The Chair and one member are from New Mexico.

 

If the Geocaching community was a little better organized we could form a delegation and visit the chair to educate the committee a little more about geocaching. Or a resident of New Mexico could visit or send a well written letter requesting consideration for geocaching in NPS to Mr. Pearce, Chair of the committee. It seems to me that the letter should also present a proposal with guidelines for geocaching and a well defined justification. Just a thought.