National Monuments

[+headybrew]

A couple of questions that I didn't find answers to in the FAQs/Guidelines.

 

I know the US National Park Service and the US Fish & Game department doesn't allow caching on land that they manage.

 

1) What about "National Monuments"?

The one that I am thinking of consists mostly of BLM and NFS land.

 

2) If the land is "Owned" by one of those agencies, does that mean that it is "Managed" by them also? Or might it be managed differently because it has been combined into a national monument?

[+StarBrand]

I am pretty sure you would need some explicit permission no matter who manages it as the park service is "in charge" of all national monuments and parks. However, I see there might be a fine line somewhere here.

[+Renegade Knight]

The Craters of the Moon is a National Monument. The area was expanded greatly some time ago.

 

The orginal Craters and the Lava Flows are NPS. The other lands are BLM. The BLM normal caching policy applies. The BLM rep that I spoke with even suggested where I may want to place the cache.

[+briansnat]

I'm pretty sure the NPS manages national monuments.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm pretty sure the NPS manages national monuments.

They probably manage most of them. Craters of the Moon is an exception with the Joint Managment.

http://www.nps.gov/crmo/parkmgmt/index.htm

 

headybrew may have another exception. How his NPS and BLM cooperate may be 100% different than how they work together on Craters of the Moon.

[+alimelacy]

National monuments are the same as national parks as far as geocaching is concerned. There are a couple (~4) of national parks and monuments (Canyons of the Ancient National Monument is one that comes to mind) that are not owned/run by the National Park Service.

 

A national monument is land set aside by the president. A national park is one set aside and voted on by Congress. That's why many parks are national monuments first.

[Keystone]

The reviewers go by this list of NPS-managed sites. If the property is on this list, then we assume "no caches" until the cache hider demonstrates otherwise.

[+Jhwk]

And this is where the old virtual caches showed their value.

[+headybrew]

The reviewers go by this list of NPS-managed sites. If the property is on this list, then we assume "no caches" until the cache hider demonstrates otherwise.

 

That's great info. Thanks you.

 

I guess I should have posted the specific place I'm thinking of. It's Carrizo Plain national monument. According to the map on this web site:

http://www.summitpost.org/area/range/23022...l-monument.html

It's almost entirely BLM land.

 

And it's not on the above list.

 

Thanks, Keystone.

Edited March 8, 2007 by headybrew

[+fox-and-the-hound]

And this is where the old virtual caches showed their value.

 

That's what I was just thinking. One of the greatest things about caching is being taken to some of the greatest places in the world that you might otherwise miss or pass up.

[Guyute1210]

And this is where the old virtual caches showed their value.

 

That's what I was just thinking. One of the greatest things about caching is being taken to some of the greatest places in the world that you might otherwise miss or pass up.

Not holding my breath or trying to cause a stir, but i wish virtuals were reinstated for ONLY land that is managed NPS. This would "reopen" that area to geocachers w/o placing a container.

[+rdaines]

And this is where the old virtual caches showed their value.

 

That's what I was just thinking. One of the greatest things about caching is being taken to some of the greatest places in the world that you might otherwise miss or pass up.

 

I hardly think a National Monument needs a geocache to attract people to visit it.

[+matcat]

I would imagine the following points would show that caches at a national monument would not be the best of ideas:

• Way too many muggles
  
• Potentially give geocaching a bad public image (people calling authorities saying they spotted a suspicious container; people calling authorities saying they see suspicious behavior from people)
  
• Very high risk of being muggled, vandalized, or blown up (If its in Boston )
  

Just my two cents on the idea

[+Rebel]

I've a grandfathered virtual at Ocmulgee National Monument in Macon, GA. A couple of the rangers there are cachers and wish very strongly that regular caches could be placed but accept the NPS decision. If they can do that, I can accept GC.com's decision. I don't have to like it, but I accept it.

[+headybrew]

I would imagine the following points would show that caches at a national monument would not be the best of ideas:

• Way too many muggles
  
• Potentially give geocaching a bad public image (people calling authorities saying they spotted a suspicious container; people calling authorities saying they see suspicious behavior from people)
  
• Very high risk of being muggled, vandalized, or blown up (If its in Boston )
  

Just my two cents on the idea

 

Well that depends a lot on which National Monument. Some of them have very few muggles that go far past the parking lots. For example, one web site says this about the Temblor Range in the Carizzo National Monument:

 

The Temblor Range contains some of the most inhospitable badlands one might hike in California. As such few have ever done so beyond local old timers that explored it for hunting or ranchers looking for lost cattle. However within its hidden labyrinths are some of the most spectacular wildflower wonderlands one will find anywhere.

 

Unfortunately, there's not much to use for a verifying a virtual find in the middle of a wildflower field...

There aren't too many terrorist targets either.

[BRTango]

I would imagine the following points would show that caches at a national monument would not be the best of ideas:

• Way too many muggles
  
• Potentially give geocaching a bad public image (people calling authorities saying they spotted a suspicious container; people calling authorities saying they see suspicious behavior from people)
  
• Very high risk of being muggled, vandalized, or blown up (If its in Boston )
  

Just my two cents on the idea

 

Well that depends a lot on which National Monument. Some of them have very few muggles that go far past the parking lots. For example, one web site says this about the Temblor Range in the Carizzo National Monument:

 

The Temblor Range contains some of the most inhospitable badlands one might hike in California. As such few have ever done so beyond local old timers that explored it for hunting or ranchers looking for lost cattle. However within its hidden labyrinths are some of the most spectacular wildflower wonderlands one will find anywhere.

 

Unfortunately, there's not much to use for a verifying a virtual find in the middle of a wildflower field...

There aren't too many terrorist targets either.

 

You could have someone count the number of flowers

[+matcat]

You could have someone count the number of flowers

Unfortuntely, flowers die, get trampled, if their in boston they get blown up , etc